Talk:The Buddha/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Translation

Somebody changed the translation of "Buddha" to "lit. 'Awake'". "Buddha" is the past participle of the root "buddh" (to awake, be enlightened), thus the previous translation of Buddha as "the enlightened one" is quite correct. I took the liberty of reverting the revision. Perseus 04:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Quite so. However "awakened one" or "one who has bee awakened" would also be acceptable, if the intention was to emphasize the root from which the term is derived rather than to change the grammar. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 23:22, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I think it would be better not to say "one", because "one" is not really etymologically part of the word. I would have said "awake" is good enough for government work, because the actual functional meaning of "awake" and "awakened" is pretty much identical. But I'm okay with simply saying "enlightened or awakened" or "the enlightened ... etc." - Nat Kraus e 04:32, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Description of passing away of BUDDHA incorrect

Gautama Budhha's passing away is described incorrectly, the mention of "pork" is incorrect and blasphemous; One of the most important teachings of Buddha/ism is Ahimsa or "non-violence. The passing away of Buddha is described very well at http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhistworld/kusinaga.htm and I suggest updating the article with the same and please remove the mention of "pork". Also, I would suggest that since He is a God figure for a large population of the world of Buddhists and Hindus and it would be a good idea to mention this in the article. --Abahuguna 20:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

According to the Maha-parinibbana Sutta (accesstoinsight.org link), the last meal of the Buddha was of Sukara-maddava. According to the note (number 38) attached to this word in the text, this is either the meat of a tender pig (i.e. pork), or that which is eaten by pigs (i.e. mushrooms). I belive that the text in the article is quite right, and I see nothing offensive about it. It is well known that the Buddha himself was not a strict vegetarian, and that he did not prohibit eating pork. See e.g. the Vegetarianism#Buddhism article. Andkaha^(talk) 21:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your comment about the Buddha being a "God figure"; This might be the way he is portrayed by some, but probably not by most Buddhists (although we greatly respect and honor him). There's an interesting text on Buddhism and the God-idea on the accesstoinsight.org web site: [1]. See also the answer to the question "Was the Buddha a god?" at buddhanet.net: [2]. Andkaha^(talk) 21:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

It is true that Buddha did not advocate vegetarianism but he denounced meat eating if the meat was prepared for satiating someone's desire. He denounced killing of any being and only if meat was prepared from an animal which got accidentally killed, it was considered ok. I would suggest to add this side of Buddha so that there are no ambiguities. I think it is very important because Buddha's most important teachings was "Ahimsa" or non-violence and there is no strong evidence to indicate that he ate meat. Abahuguna 06:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The last word in the section on the great passing is 'bibble'. What's up with that? What does bibble mean? Did someone insert a meaningless word there just for fun? --shianux 06:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Geographical origin

Wait, but lumbini is located in Nepal though. I don't see how its located in bihar? It might be bordering bihar but it is still in Nepal. Again is it correct to say toronto is located in US and Canada?

You said "Gautama Buddha was a spiritual teacher believed to have lived between approximately 563 BC and 483 BC in India." However, he spent almost half his life in Nepal. Granted he got his encarnation and his later life was spent in India spreading the religion, but shouldn't you be saying in india and Nepal? also why is it that you say "a town situated in what is now Nepal". Because neither Nepal or India was united into a country then. so why not when you say India say " what is now known as India"? Sorry but its the truth. -- Unsigned comment from 156.56.154.22.

Buddha was Indian...not NEpali....In those days their was no such thing as Nepal...It was all Bharat, or Land of the Aryans, which in general means India...Buddha lived most his life in India...SPread his teachings in India...gained enlightenment in India...Passed away in India....was born in a HIndu family, was a Kasatriya, so it doesnt make sense to say he was "Nepali", just becuase he was technicallly born in an area that is NOW KNOWN AS NEPAL...Come on is this a joke? ARYAN818 05:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, ARYAN818, I'm amazed at your energy!! You are confusing the modern country with the region. Please stop trying to steal Buddha's identity! You can't change facts that his birthplace is Lumbini in what is now Nepal. If you claim Buddha for the modern country of Republic of India, I don't see why poor Nepal have to step aside to adhere to your illogical demands, and NOT say Lumbini is under their territory. You've been doing this in several pages, please read what argument is being placed, and think for one second at least. Thank you. --Ragib 05:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the text of this article follows what is common practice for most articles and texts on Buddhism, not only in Wikipedia but also in print. --Andkaha^(talk) 06:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The term India is commonly used to refer to the subcontinent, as well as the modern political entity. It's not so unusual for even parts of modern Nepal to be referred to as ancient India. --Carl 12:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

But modern Nepal was never a part of ancient India. And just because its common practice (i.e. it would be since there are more Indian saying it that way)doesn't mean its true. And if you really mean the subcontinent, they why don't you say the subcontinent. Because to anyone reading this article, when you say India, it does NOT mean Nepal, unless you consider it to be a part of India like some ignorant people do. - thal

In which place in the text do you think there is an improper reference to India? --Andkaha^(talk) 22:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

"Gautama Buddha was a spiritual teacher believed to have lived between approximately 563 BC and 483 BC in India. That's the part. I am saying half his life was spent in Nepal.

The text now reads Gautama Buddha was a spiritual teacher believed to have lived between approximately 563 BC and 483 BC on the Indian subcontinent, in the Gangetic Plains area of modern Nepal and northern India. I hope this is ok with everyone. --Andkaha^(talk) 06:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It might be more efficient just to say, "…believed to have lived between approximately 563 BC and 483 BC in the Gangetic Plains area of modern Nepal and northern India." Any objections? --Carl 13:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I would not object. --Andkaha^(talk) 14:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's important for us not to waste any breath in this article discussing whether or not the Buddha lived in Nepal. I would be happy if it never contained the word "Nepal" at all, but, for the sake of completeness, we might as well point out that Lumbini is in "what is now Nepal." It's not as though Siddhartha crossed a border when he went from "ancient Nepal" to "ancient India". Neither existed at the time as political or cultural entities. We say "India" in the article in order to give our readers a clear sense of where the story takes place; we could also say "South Asia", but that would be less clear. - Nat Kraus e 12:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It's good you make those changes because it is correct. To Nat, your logic does not make much sense. Its true neither existed as political entites, so why call it India? You refer to the place as India because you think it will give a clear sense of where the story takes place. then for example, if you were born in say toronto, why not just call it US? If people do not know where Nepal is, they can just click on it or you can say Nepal, South Asia. I thought wikipedia was trying to give the facts rather than 'make it easy for the readers' although it might not be true.

I slightly agree with the above para. References to Buddha's life should not really use either "India" or "Nepal", unless they are prefixed with "what is now" - There is no doubt that he was born and lived on the Indian subcontinent, which is a geographic area, not a political one. It appears that there are some political issues regarding his birthplace - and these can be avoided by saying Indian subcontinent. I have no problem stating Lumbini either. Regarding his early life, there are some conjectural issues about the political status of his family - as the region at the time (AFAICR) was not divided into kingships or "warrior tribes" as stated in the article. However, his father was an influential member of the political elite. (20040302 09:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC))

I disagree. If you look at the Wikipedia page about the history of the word India, you'll see that the word "India" has been used in the West since Roman times to refer to the land around the Indus river. So, "India" the place preceeds the country that uses the name "India" today. Similarly, if in a thousand years, the border between Canada and the US is lost to history, it wouldn't be correct to say a Torontoite was from "the US" but it would be correct to say that they were from "America" (presuming the word is still in use in the future), because America is the name of a wider geographical region, which it just so happens is also used as the name of one particular country within that region. --Carl 12:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I am aware of the origins of the word "India" - but this doesn't really suit the region from which Gautama was raised, which is about as far from the Indus as Turkey is. Regardless, we have to be aware of the current usage of India, which is not as a region, but as a political entity - e.g. following your argument, try telling a Pakistani or Nepali that they are from India. However, the term 'Indian subcontinent' is sufficiently neutral and acceptable for individuals of the region. Moreover, your argument appears to be spurious - I am familiar with a geographic region called "North America", but I am not familiar with one called "America" and indeed normally NA is called continental NA, or the NA continent - especially when it is necessary to distinguish it from the USA. Regardless, the term America also has not been around two thousand years, and was not used by the Romans, and what relevance does any of that have at all? (20040302 18:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC))

That the Buddha was born in what is today Nepal is just speculation. There have been credible claims that Lumbini was a place in what is today the state of Orissa in India. All that is known for certain is that he lived and functioned in Indic milieu proper. All the places associated with his life are in India today. His life and philosophy make full sense when seen in the larger Indian context. It is absurd to use any other geographical location other than India in association with the Buddha. (MT, Dec 15 2005)

That is just a jingoistic view. FYI:"Since five thousand (+more) years of history, Nepal has existed as a sovereign nation." Buddha belongs to the human race and it would not be a justice to give him citizenship of any modern day country. (Jan 07, 2006)

here are a few pictures of siddarthas life.

You deleted everything but the pictures. Please be careful; That can easily be mistaken for vandalism. You might try the sandbox. Tom Harrison (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Why do u keep saying he was born in Nepal? Back then there was no Nepal u idiot. It was all known as India...Yes today it is called Nepal I understand..but when an outsider reads that he/she is going to think Buddha was Nepali! As it is you already have people who make Buddha look East Asian so your being unfair here..He lived in India...DIed in India..and was born on the border of what is nepal India...u should say he was born in India in what is today known as Lumbini....Isnt that more fair? Unsigned comment by User:71.107.62.213.

Why do you keep saying he was born in Nepal? In those days it was all India and there was no place called Nepal...U should say he was born in ancient India, which is today known as Nepal ARYAN818 08:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There has been much discussion about this issue above. In fact, in those days it was not all "India" either. Neither it was "Nepal". These names did not exist in those days. Hence it is fair to say that the Buddha was born in the place (Lumbini) that now lies in "modern" Nepal. If we say that he was born in ancient India, although correct, it may create confusion about the exact present location of his birth place. I think that the Buddha was neither a Nepali nor an Indian. We cannot issue him a citizenship of modern countries. Skr 16:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

And what is the problem with buddha being seen as a Nepali? since you have no problem showing him as an indian. First of all..frankly people don't care whether he is considered nepali or just considered universal being the person he was. but the fact is...he was born in current day nepal. correct that there was not Nepal then...but there was no india then either. but does that mean any of the historical person or even religous person born in india around the time of buddha or earlier can't actually be called indian because there was no such thing as india...can you say he was not born in modern day india because at that time there was no such thing as india. and just because its in the border, doesnt mean it is in india. the tree is clearly in the nepalese side of the border (agreed by the buddhists experts around the world (even indians). so all the people are saying here is that buddha was born in current day nepal (which is a fact, as lumbini is in NEPAL not india). and people who want to call it ancient india, again if there was no such thing as Nepal, neither was there such a thing as india then. but nobody here is arguing that he got englightened in india and died there. but how about if someone argues the other way and says since he was born in nepal and was somewhat close to nepal most of his life, why not say that he died and got englighted in ancient nepal since there was no such thing as india then. just think about it before you start calling others idiots. so all i am saying and most other people are sayying is..we don't really need to give buddha a country for citizenship...he was universal if you like to say it that way..but its a fact that he was born in lumbini and its also a fact that lumbini is in current day nepal (if you disagree with either of these, then that is not my problem- I won't waste time on you....but if you agree with these two things, then there really is no reason not to say that he was born in lumbini which is in current day Nepal. - unsigned comment from User:12.205.39.220

I don't really have any strong feelings on this subject, but my general opinion is that "Nepal" should refer to a fairly specific political and entity, and, as far as I'm aware, this entity did not exist yet 2500 years ago. "India", on the other hand, should refer to the entire complex of interacting civilizations that have existed on the subcontinent since the Harappans. India is not the Republic of India. That's why I think it can be more appropriate to refer to events in the Buddha's time as taking place in India than it would be to refer to them as happening in Nepal. The more confounding problem, I think, is that the Shakyas, the Buddha's people, seem to have been very much on the fringes of the North Indian society of their day, so it can be misleading to say that the Buddha was born and raised in India for that reason. I'm not sure what the best way to phrase it in the article is—I suppose we had best mention that Lumbini is in what is now Nepal, for the sake of completeness, but I think it's important that we not waste much of our readers' time discussing the matter. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 08:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This particular debate goes on and on. The primary issue that many have with stating that Buddha was born in India is that India is the name of a modern nation. Noone has any doubts about the fact that Buddha was born on the Indian subcontinent, which is NOT the name of a modern nation. The objection is that stating Buddha was born in India is seen by many to be analogously similar to stating that Jesus was born in Israel, which is just not true. Therefore, it is definately necessary to avoid the ambiguity of the label. We can state that Buddha was born in the Indian subcontinent. We can also state it is almost unanimously acknowledged that Buddha was born in Lumbini, which is in modern-day Nepal. We can state that Buddha was born in a country which at the time was considered to be part of Bharata - the Southern Continent, but which is now part of modern day Nepal. We cannot state that Buddha was born in India - though the name was used by Romans (possibly later anyway) - they were referring to the people of the Indus - and Lumbini is as far from the Indus as is Turkey. (20040302)

Personally, I would be surprised to hear someone say that Jesus was not born in Israel. I would wonder if perhaps this is an assertion that he was actually born in Egypt or Mesopatamia, etc. However, I accept the consensus of this talk page to avoid "India" in this article. One more thing: when does the term "Bharata" date from? I don't know a lot about that term, but I have always thought it was simply synonymous with "India".—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 17:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

See Jambudvipa. There are many variant interpretations of early vedic/puranic geography - but Bharata is found there. FYI, Jesus was born in Judea (a subject state of the Roman Empire). Bethlehem is in modern day West Bank - which itself is not currently considered under international law to be a de jure part of any state. Lord Gautama - as I understand it - was born in Śākya nation (or Janapada) on the northern borders of Kosala - in modern day Nepal. (20040302)

You know back then there was no such place called "Nepal". The entire region was known as India, or Bharat, or Land of the Aryans. It is wrong to say that he lived most of his life in Nepal and only SOME in India. I mean the Bodi tree is in India (where he obtained enlightenment), he died in India, he walked all over India, & his birth was just inside of technically what is today known as Nepal....BE FAIR! 71.119.249.221 07:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Now nobody here cares to mention that the region in which Lumbini is located i.e terai was part of the principality of Awadh of UP, until the british gave it to the kingdom of Nepal when the two signed a treaty fairly recently in historical terms i.e a about 150 yrs ago. Before that the entire terai was part of the mughal empire and was taken over by the Shahs of Nepal when the mughal empire weakned. Nepal was essentialy the name of Kathmandu Valley and sorrounding areas which has been used since about 1400 yrs ago in the forom of Newar or Newal, some here make absolutely bizzare claims that Nepal existed 5000 yrs ago. Even if we date Nepalese entity as sperate from a thousand years ago still it did not contain Terai or Lumbini until fairly recently. Ancient India is however mentioned in every historical text related to buddhism be it chinese, greek, middle eastern etc. why don't they mention Nepal or that Buddha was Nepali??? cuz it was not a part of the present kingdom of Nepal.....which did not exist in its present form, it is appropriate however to mention that at present Lumbini is located inside Nepal along the Indian border.....also, his kingdom was on both sides of the border........lumbini even today is barely inside Nepal.

Dates of birth and death

I understand that there are no reliable historic sources in this matter, but it might be worth mentioning the dates on which the various sects of Buddhism commemorate the birth and death of the Buddha. April 8 seems to be the most commonly celebrated birthdate, and I've seen February 15 cited as the date of his death; a more complete list should be added if we're going to include it. --Theodore Kloba 16:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Rant

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHY EVERYONE KEEPS SAYING HE WAS BORN IN NEPAL? IN THOSE DAYS THERE WAS NO SUCH PLACE AS NEPAL! I MEAN HE SPOKE SANSKRIT, HIS FAMILY WAS HINDU, HE GOT ENLIGTHENED AT THE BODI TREE IN INDIA, AND HE DIED IN INDIA...YET U WANNA SAY THAT HE WAS NEPALI??..THE FAIR WAY TO EDIT THIS PAGE IS TO SAY HE WAS BORN IN ANCIENT INDIA, AND WHAT IS NOW KNOWN AS NEPAL...ISNT THAT MORE FAIR? 71.107.62.213 05:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No your right there was no place known as India...but it was known as Bharat or land of the aryans...I mean your acting like the whole area of India was one big jungle where no one was united...Thats stupid....The land was known as Arya stan, which means land of the Aryans, and it was also known as Bharat...Even the outsiders recognized this was aread that had a unity. I mean Greeks called it India or land of the Aryans, Muslim invaders called it Hindustan, so dont give me that baloney there was no India...Yes India was not a word your right...but it was known as a different name you moron...But u have to type India because thats what people know it as. Nobody knows what land of the aryans is, or Bharat means...and u cant say Nepal that just doesnt make sense.

Yes, there was no place as nepal but there was no place such as india either. Just writing everything in captial letters doesn't make you right. so here listen to me: using your logic...think of an indian christian born in indian but goes on live in US later in his life....he speaks english, his family is christian, he studied in US and he died in US..does that suddenly change his birth place to america and make him an american...or would you say he is still an indian? He was not born in ancient india..people here do not have a problem saying he got englightened and died in india, but they do have a problem saying he was born in india. india was not a country and neither was nepal. but where he was born was in a place called lumbini..and that is in modern nepal whether u like it or not. and that is all the article is saying.

Since other people whose title are important are referred to by name and title, like Jesus Christ or Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, I'd be happier it this were "[Siddhartha] Gautama Buddha" (or even "[Siddhartha] Gautama the Buddha," but that would be inconsistent unless the other one were changed to "Jesus the Christ," which wouldn't be a bad idea anyhow, because it makes clear the point discussed in the article that Jesus was his name and Christ his sobrïquet). -- isis

Image of Dasha Avatar

The image at the bottom of the article depicting the dasha avatar has a caption saying that the picture at the centre is that of Vishnu. It is actually a picture of Krishna again. Vishnu is never depicted playing a flute and has four hands, whereas Krishna has two. I've edited the image caption --203.199.213.131 14:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed from Buddha

The following text comes from Buddha, whereas it should have been in this article—but, it's redundant with a comparable section that already exists, and the below looks kind of iffy, so I'm moving it to talk. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)