Talk:The Buddha

photos

I have many like this Image:Golden_Triangle_Buddha.jpg near the Thai-Laos border, and Thai relatives that can describe the location and significance. Doug youvan (talk) 04:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Historical Buddha?

At the time of the Buddha's birth, the area was at or beyond the boundary of Vedic civilization,

Buddha was certainly Indo-Aryan if not why is his name, his mother's name, father's name, his Kingdom's name and everything about him in Sanskrit/Pali/Prakrit? This is just some ludicrous fabrication to some how make Buddha Tibetan or Dalit Hero..Please use some authoritative source to substantiate this claim because this is as absurd as saying Jesus must have been Roman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsriniva (talk • contribs) 21:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Much, if not most, of this article reads like a text written for a Buddhist audience. It needs a section that separates the historical Buddha, or as much as is known of him. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus for an example of what I mean. 67.221.68.114 (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I will neutralize it later...--Esteban Barahona (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think scholars have pursued a "Historical Buddha" as much as they have a a "Historical Jesus," probably simply because there is less (accurate) biographical literature available on Buddha the Man. Buddhists are less likely to say that their sources are infallible as Christians probably due to the simple fact that they do not regard Buddha himself as important as his teachings. The article seems neutral enough at this point. --124.138.185.194 (talk) 04:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC) (Sorry, here's a proper sig: --Darkpoet (talk) 04:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC))

I agree with the writer above. I would say that if the first written records were 400 years after his death, then of course obviously the oral tradition turns it into more of a mythology for story telling purposes, but there has to be a lot of fact to it, or else no one would have carried on his teachings for 2000 years. Maybe some of the time frames of his meditations were exagerated, etc., but the principles and insights are real and historically Siddharta's. And of course over 400 years, other monks most likely added, or refined ideas, or created allegories of real events. That's the way oral traditions work, but I think arrogant pseudo-scholars should try to do something more constructive than trying to diminish the historical accuracy of the buddha mythos. Historians should try focusing on the bad things that have happened in history so as to not repeat the same mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.65.114 (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia needs a new article with the title: "Historical Buddha" that is similar to the article Historical Jesus. There appears to be a consensus on this. Are we ready to create this article on the "Historical Buddha"? Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Gautama Buddha or Buddha Gautama

Since Budha is a tile, it should be before of the name... like "Dr. Name", "Ms. Lady".--Esteban Barahona (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean the title of "Buddha" which means something like "one who has achieved bodhi." Some titles are appended to a name, such as "rex" which means king (see Oedipus Rex) or M.D.... --124.138.185.194 (talk) 04:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC) (Again, a proper sig: --Darkpoet (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC))

Right, this just presumes a Western word order for titles. Consider a number of titles within Buddhist community that follow the names they modify (Roshi, Rinpoche, etc.) not to mention all Japanese honorifics and titles (-san, -sama, sensei...). I'm sure there are dozens of other examples. Anyway, a "google test" for the primary usage shows overwhelming preference for "Gautama Buddha"—16.6 million hits versus just under 51,000 for the inverse. /Ninly (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If Buddha is a title, then can I call myself Buddha Smith or Smith Buddha after I feel that I have become enlightened about life? 86.136.57.254 (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimer

Why does wikipedia need this disclaimer? if it need it as such then it really ought not to be in the article. However if it is a controversial addition then add it in a 'controversy' section. It really seems out of place to come in here with a disclaimer. You don't need to say "The following..." it is not a media report, it has to be encyclopedic. People read varying accounts and make up their mind. Lihaas (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the wording from my first attempt was strange. It is definitely true, though, that scholars say that the traditional biography is largely myth. Scholars do give very short biographies, with details that they think are more certain. Basically they are birth, renunciation, enlightenment, teaching, death. Bearing this in mind is the current version acceptable to you? Mitsube (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Its cetrainly a lot better, but it still doesnt flow. Doesn't read encyclopedically. One can mention academic versions and religious versions instead of the disclaimer, perhaps? Lihaas (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is "Gautama Buddha." So this plays the role of a biography. Wouldn't the article about any person be assumed to be factual? Mitsube (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait, this supports my stand. Right? thats the way i saw it. perhaps this ought not to be in there then? esp. if it needs a disclaimer. Lihaas (talk) 03:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Scholars say the biography is fiction, but many Buddhists incorrectly think it is fact. Mitsube (talk) 04:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. then we should cite a textual/scriptural version and an academic version instead of coming up with that amateurish disclaimer. It'll appear more encyclopedic. Lihaas (talk) 05:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Mitsube, care to provide citations of why it's "not a fact"? You talk like if you have solid proof of the biography of Gautama being a complete lie yet provide cero citations or references.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 05:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added it. I finally got a copy of that book that was quoted saying the teachings were written down after three generations. Mitsube (talk) 06:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just edited a bit, sounds a little better now I think. What do others think? Lihaas (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gautama_Buddha&diff=236968291&oldid=236909292

Sorry, meant to say something like "accords with the traditional literature." Gives more certainty than the ambigous "must be" Lihaas (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

citations

Some of the citations here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha#References) (particularly the carrithers ones) are really out of style. someone ought to cite it in a manner more academic. Perhaps MLA or APA or something of the sort. looks very amatuerish right now. Lihaas (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not doing this professionally, personally. Mitsube (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If your going to add the citations you should follow a pattern. one that is already there. its encyclopedic. wikipedia is not a web log. Lihaas (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Title

Bishalacharyawakkanai (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Undoubtedly wikipedia has been the source of reliable information about many articles, and this article although pretty good at its description has something which is a little vague, when it starts the title by saying Siddhārtha Gautama (Sanskrit; Pali: Siddhattha Gotama) was a spiritual teacher from ancient India and the founder of Buddhism. If we google Siddhartha Gautama in google we will find several articles and majority of them says He was born in Kapilvastu,Lumbini, Nepal but the wikipedia says He was from ancient India ? Does this means Nepal was ancient India ? The issue is a controversial one and it should be refined based on actual facts and historical evidences found, which until as todays research suggests that it wasn't ancient India where he was from.

When did the nation of Nepal come into being? Mitsube (talk) 03:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Modern Political meanings have no place in History articles. I am very much against the use of the term "Ancient India" as it makes little sense. I had a read through the Ancient India page, and it seems there is no map of this "Ancient India". The first few references to the location of 'Ancient India' are entirely inside modern day Pakistan. (Indus Valley). Then a few entries later, it just seems to be a geographical term plastered with the modern Indian flag.
Sometimes, Ancient India refers to a select few empires which are based entirely in Central Asia and Pakistan (Ghandara).
This is non sense frankly. Ancient India is a very vague term and has no meaning. Its simply used to promote Indian nationalism.

I propose that for instances like these, its important to EITHER describe the location by its original name. (What ever that region of Nepal was called back then).

OR

What the region is called NOW. i.e Nepal.

The Original name of the place, or the Modern name serve a far more useful purpose than "Ancient India", which has no meaning. I am sure Buddha didnt call himself "Ancient Indian".
--Xinjao (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to continue this discussion here. After a consensus has been reached, we can edit the articles accordingly.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please revert categorization mistake

{{editsemiprotected}} Please restore the category tag mistakenly removed in this edit (not mine). Why is it mistaken? It is true that most of the time, an article should not be placed in Category X if it is already in Category Y, and Category Y is a sub-category of Category X. The exception is when the article is the topic article for Category Y -- as it is in this case. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done, I agree. ~ mazca ^t|c 17:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Buddha was born on Kapilbastu which is in Nepal (not in India). Please do a research before putting these types of serious issues!!!

Recent excavations at Piprahava in U.P. in India have revealed that this place was the Kapikvastu of Buddha's times. Buddha was born at Lumbini (which is in Nepal) when his mother Mayadevi was going from Kapilvastu to Devadaha(her father's place in Nepal). Reference: "Ancient India" by S.K. Lall, page 252 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patel.gunvant (talk • contribs) 10:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

birthday

I read that gautama buddha was born on may 8 under a full moon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.222.144 (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC) In a recent conference in Bangalore using astronomical data Prof. Narihar Achar gave the birth of Buddha as April 9, 1887 and nirvana as March 27, 1807. This comment was posted by Dr. N. N. Chandra on Sept 2, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.182.222 (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Origin

• Mahásammata I've never read about that until today.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.200.101 (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

PHYSICAL APPEARANCE OF BUDDHA This was a surprise to me. I always thought he was extremely plump; what morphologists call a "Fat Boy". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.189.142.251 (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Literature: Was The Buddha A Pessimist? by Acharya S.N. Goenka

Austerlitz -- 88.75.202.68 (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The humanity of the Buddha

This wikipedia page lacks in humanity. Gautama achieved enlightenment because of his great sensitivity and his relentless resolve to find the answer - his quest for the truth was in other words a quest to comprehend why he suffered, and he achieved enlightenment when he understood that salvation lied not in nonexistence, but in God, or compassion. That is why he was deeply grateful of the Bodhi tree - it symbolized purity. It was when he achieved certainty of the existence of the only God that he understood the purpose of life, and the concepts of impermanence and nondualism were a natural consequence, as he finally accepted that the only universal reality could only be goodness - the mind from which thought and thus creation (self-expression) is derived, or the heart that all sentient beings share. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pqwpq (talk • contribs) 12:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This interesting new theory should be brought up in academic circles for consideration. Mitsube (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

To better understand Gautama Buddha, one should consider studying Thích Quảng Đức (whom I would refer to as "Amitabha Buddha", or that is, the Buddha of Infinite Light) and Narayana Guru. One will find that these three beings encompassed the principle of enlightenment. One should study them seperately, and yet at the same time focus on how they were similar. One will then find that their teachings were identical, if one uses the heart. Pqwpq (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The principle of enlightenment is the universal epitome of self-expression, self-sacrifice. Self-sacrifice is only possible when one sacrifices one's self out of love, and self-sacrifice is hence the supreme expression of humanity, and thus, spontaneity. When the principle of enlightenment is rightfully comprehended, one's self becomes purified by light because of the final realization on the nature of compassion, and the divine nature of the Universe is thus revealed.

It is through the interaction with others that one either diminishes or increases the suffering of others, and it is hence from this interaction that one derives either joy or suffering. Enlightenment is achieved when one is mindful of the universal duality of compassion and suffering, and the principle behind this duality and the sustenance of the Universe, which can only be goodness. It is by being mindful of how this duality relates to the self that one is enlightened.

When the principle of the Universe is revealed, one attains clear-sightedness, and the principle of ethics appears. The principle of ethics is the ethical approach towards life and it is centered upon the self. Hence, the principle of ethics is concerned with being ethical towards one's self. The principle of ethics appears because one finally comprehends that the divine heart is equally shared by all sentient beings, that it is behind creation, and that it is thus the only reality.

Individuality is what makes the dream exist - individuality is life and thus the ideal. True enjoyment can only be found when enlightenment is attained - individuality is not retained, it is unshackled.

I will further expand on why Thích Quảng Đức was the Buddha of Infinite Light:

Thích Quảng Đức chose to immolate himself out of self-sacrifice. When his body was re-cremated, his heart was the only relic that remained intact over the rest that had turned into ashes, and it was hence preserved in a temple as a holy object. The reason why he was able to endure the agony without even minutely flinching or making a sound, and the reason why his heart only was left remaining after the re-cremation, was because of him choosing to condense and express the entire meaning of his life in those minutes of self-immolation. He sacrificed himself to express himself, and the power that drove him is the same that sustains the Universe: the heart of divine conception, the essence of creation and therefore of expression, or love. Had I been there, I too would have thrown myself onto the ground and prostrated myself before him in reverence. It is through his sacrifice that he moved towards the supreme vision of the Buddha - infinite light.

I am Maitreya. You are Maitreya too, if you have realized that all sentient beings are enlightened. I will link myself to a voluntary organization so as to maintain my self-expression - http://www.bethecause.org/. The world will progress through what they represent - spiritual unity. Maitreya is any sentient being who embraces spiritual unity, or enlightenment. Pqwpq (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Per the talk page guidelines, please keep discussion on this page focused on concrete issues related to changes or improvements in the article under discussion. This is not a forum for more general discussions of Buddhism or spirituality. --Clay Collier (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is very misleading!

Such an important article begins its FIRST sentence by stating that - "Siddhārtha Gautama (Sanskrit; Pali: Siddhattha Gotama) was a spiritual teacher from Ancient India and the founder of Buddhism."

This is certainly shameful if not disgraceful! What exactly is Ancient India? This is similar to writing an article on Pakistan and starting it by stating - "The current-day Pakistan is a part of Ancient India", or may be an article on Sheikh Hasina of Bangladesh and starting the FIRST sentence as - "Sheikh Haseena was born in some place that historically belonged to Ancient India." or may be an article on Bill Clinton that starts off by saying - "Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States was born in the United States, formerly ruled by the British."

India was named and left away by Britishers in 1947. So there was no Ancient India as such. You always associate the person where he was born according to the modern era. And you don't ever say Pele was born in South America. So say this, Buddha was born in nepal and not in ancient india or indian subcontinent.

Now theoretically speaking, there is nothing wrong with the above sentences, but they read weird at best, and disgraceful to many. Furthermore, the entity "Ancient India" is very loose, and no clear boundaries exist. The term "India" was not in existence when Buddha was born, making its usage in the first sentence of this article even more faulty.

Kindly change that with either "Nepal" or may be something like - "Siddhārtha Gautama (Sanskrit; Pali: Siddhattha Gotama) was a spiritual teacher from an ancient kingdom of the Shakyas (or from a kingdom ruled by the Shakyas) (or from a kingdom that lies within the modern-day Nepal) and the founder of Buddhism."

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riteshlamsal (talk • contribs) 13:11, 12 January 2009

Agreed. However, it's not quite as disgraceful as you suggest; the "Ancient India" phrasing seems to be the campaign of some persistent editors on several related pages – it was not a result of editorial consensus. /Ninly (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Scholars generally say "ancient India", it is a meaningful phrase. Gombrich and Carrithers descibe him as living in "ancient India." Mitsube (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

ancient India should be used, and I wasn't the only one. These Nepali SPAs are getting annoying, YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the confusion is that the word "India" refers to a variety of different things, the current state being only one of them. Mitsube (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind correction. My intention was never to hurt anyone's sentiments (someone suggested "annonying!") - just tying to enforce upon the point that an article of such magnitude has to be near-perfect. The usage of "Indian subcontinent" makes better sense than "Ancient India". Despite that it is interesting to note that in routine use and in standard literature the term "Indian Subcontinent" is very popular in India and among non-residential Indians, however HARDLY used in contemporary works from Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and other places that it intends to encompass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.79.40.136 (talk) 10:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't claim to know very much at all about these issues and have no personal connection to bias my POV (except for an interest in clarity and accuracy wink). My view above was based on some others that were expressed in discussions at the Sanskrit talk page and elsewhere, where consensus seems since to have swung again ("ancient India" now appears repeatedly on the Sanskrit article, as well). However, the ancient India disambiguation page demonstrates to me that the phrase could mean one of many different things, which isn't helpful to someone who knows nothing about the history of South Asia or the standards of current Buddhism/historical scholarship. I only chose "Indian subcontinent" because there is a clear article/definition to link. Also, the "Kapilavastu, Ancient India" that appeared in the infobox definitely implied a monolithic state that did not exist (less of an issue in the body text because it doesn't involve the city-comma-state convention, which strengthens that implication). /Ninly (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not use "South Asia" in place of "Indian Subcontinent"? The term "South Asia" will not hurt the sentiment of many people in Nepal or other countries but the term "Indian Subcontinent" is just unacceptable to many people from the countries around India.

I think that the usage of 'Indian subcontinent' was to make it as geographically precise as possible without making reference to any modern political boundaries. There are a couple of definitions of what's included in South Asia around, but less disagreement over what the Indian subcontinent is because the continental plate boundaries are pretty clear (take a look at File:South Asia (ed)update.PNG vs. File:Indian subcontinent.JPG, for instance). 'Indian subcontinent' is, as far as I know, a pretty neutral term; no one refers to that geographic/tectonic entity in any other way in English. --Clay Collier (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

People from Nepal do not consider their country to be part of so called "Indian" subcontinent. It is a part of South Asia. To say that the Buddha was from "Indian" subcontinent is not correct, in my humble opinion. The most neutral and correct usage would be "...was a spiritual teacher from an ancient kingdom of the Shakyas..."24.182.20.76 (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Using the phrase "...was a spiritual teacher from an ancient kingdom of the Shakyas..." may be neutral, but not necessarily helpful. It would still need to be placed in some geographical area that would be recognizable to readers who don't know anything about the topic. How would you propose to do that? Perhaps with "... was a spiritual teacher from an ancient kingdom of the Shakyas, believed to have been in what is now called (insert correct modern state name here)..." (Sorry - I'm not really sure what the concensus is on where it actually was.) Would that be acceptable to everyone? Rabbit36 (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The best way to write it so everybody would understand it:

Siddhārtha Gautama (Sanskrit: सिद्धार्थ गौतम; Pali: शिद्धत्थ ङोतम Siddhattha Gotama) was a spiritual teacher who founded Buddhism.

There is no need to tell where is he from in the first sentence. There are enough discussion in the article where it states where he comes from!

People are forgeting that its not important where he came from or where he got enlighted, most important things are his teachings.

After reading the article it seems that some indian editors here in WIKI are trying to hard to prove that he (Buddha) was born in India. Its funny to read "ancient indians". India is a term coined by British. India as a country that exist since 1947.

Life section: has to be edited, lets start that section with his birth and then at the end death.

I totally understand why Nepali people are annoyed by the way this artile is written.

end!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.148.91 (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"According to some" ?

After this, the Buddha ate his last meal, which, according to some translations was pork, which he had received as an offering from a blacksmith named Cunda.

1. Cite these "some translations". Always cite. Always cite.

2. Note that there is no actual knowledge of this last meal, and the supposition is based on speculative etymology alone.

3. Note that there is a roughly equal divide as to whether the term refers to pork or fungi. --75.49.222.121 (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that after listing "Always cite" as number 1, you failed to cite evidence for 2 and 3.....

The Great Departure

There are some disputes regarding the great departure of Buddha. The reason described in the article is about a dead person, a sick, and an old man. This view is described but not properly referenced in the article.

Another, and more justifiable, reason is given in the book The Buddha and His Dhamma by Dr. Ambedkar. He writes in its prolouge:

The first problem relates to the main event in the life of the Buddha, namely, Parivraja. Why did the Buddha take Parivraja? The traditional answer is that he took Parivraja because he saw a dead person, a sick person and an old person. This answer is absurd on the face of it. The Buddha took Parivraja at the age of 29. If he took Parivraja as a result of these three sights, how is it he did not see these three sights earlier? These are common events occurring by hundreds, and the Buddha could not have failed to come across them earlier. It is impossible to accept the traditional explanation that this was the first time he saw them. The explanation is not plausible and does not appeal to reason. But if this is not the answer to the question, what is the real answer?

He gives the real answer in the first part of the book, From Birth to Parivajra. This should be taken in account and must be included in the article. Following three sections of the first gives reasons of his exile:

• Conflict with the Sangh
• Offer of Exile
• Parivajra--The Way Out

Ganesh Dhamodkar (Talk) 07:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The MacMillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism, which gives no mention to Ambedkar's take on the great departure, has this to say about the traditional 3/4 sights (Heinz Bechert writing): "This story of the four sights definitely does not belong to the earliest traditions of the life of the historical Buddha, but it became a constituent of all biographies of the Buddha at an early date. Originally it was derived from the legendary biography of a former buddha that is narrated in the Mahavadaana-sutra in the form of a sermon of the Buddha." I don't know what, if anything, were the historical sources for Ambedkar's description of the Buddha going into exile because he disagreed with the decision to enter a war. Nothing of this sort is seen in the historical sources I'm familiar with, nor have I ever seen the claim mentioned in academic sources. I would say that the article should mention Ambedkar's Buddha and His Dhamma as an alternative biography of the Buddha, but it should be made clear that Ambedkar's primary interest was not fidelity to the existing historical sources, but rather reconstructing what he believed was a form of Buddhism that had been suppressed or hidden- as such, the consensus of most scholars and Ambedkar's conclusions regarding the life of the Buddha are very different. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't know what are the historical sources that Ambedkar used for this description. I will try to find it. But he claims no originality for this book and claims it only as a compilation.

To disarm all criticism I would like to make it clear that I claim no originality for the book. It is a compilation and assembly plant. The material has been gathered from various books. I would particularly like to mention Ashvaghosha's Buddhavita [=Buddhacharita], whose poetry no one can excel. In the narrative of certain events I have even borrowed his language. The only originality that I can claim in [=is] the order of presentation of the topics, in which I have tried to introduce simplicity and clarity. There are certain matters which give headache[s] to the student of Buddhism. I have dealt with them in the Introduction.

From preface Ganesh Dhamodkar (Talk) 03:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a partial translation of the Buddhacharita here from some old theosophical society newsletters that covers the Great Renunciation period. No mention of the conflict with the Sangha that Ambedkar describes. My understanding is that the critique leveled at Ambedkar is that in spite of his statements that he was just assembling sources from elsewhere, a lot of his ideas concerning historical Buddhism were influenced by his political goals to the point of departing significantly from the historical sources. As Yellowmoney points out, the traditional account is likely not historically correct, and contains a great deal that is myth or embellishment. However, the traditional account is attested to by historical sources. Honestly, the historiography of the current article is weak to the point of non-existence. A clarification of what the sources are for the life of the Buddha, and how they differ, would be a big improvement. --Clay Collier (talk)

Hi Yellowmonkey, Please go through Talk:Gautama_Buddha#The_Great_Departure. I think you can help me in this matter as you are a member of wikiproject Buddhism and an active contributor to the article. Ganesh Dhamodkar (Talk) 07:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Also go through this edit, which I had done about two years ago. Ganesh Dhamodkar (Talk) 07:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ambedkar seems to be a bit non-mainstream though, although frankness, the traditional account is not really supposed to be a literal account. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

• "Early Western scholarship tended to accept the biography of the Buddha presented in the Buddhist scriptures." This is not correct. They did not tend to accept it. They accepted it as being largely historical, though there are fantastical and mythological elements that no scholar would endorse.

I didn't change the meaning of the sentence. I only removed the redundancy. The meaning of the sentence does not change by removing a superfluous phrase. You seem to want the sentence to say that they accepted the large part of the historical narrative; but the sentence doesn't say that in the version you reverted to, either. It's clumsy, ugly, and unclear, and I think if you read it again you'll see that "in large part" seems to modify "Western scholars" more so than "accept". But if you just want to savor insolent, hair-trigger reverts that don't even respect the proper placement of commas, I suppose you might miss this, too. DBaba (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• You also removed "The ancient Indians were not concerned with chronologies, being far more focused on philosophy." This information, which I did not write, is sourced. You removed this information and only attribute this attitude to the Buddhist texts, which is also somewhat fallacious as texts do not have attitudes.

You can't say "The ancient Indians were not concerned with" this or that, it's too broad. I'm sure that Ancient Indians were individuals whose views varied. This is a clumsy way of construing an actual point about the texts. "Wikipedia editors prefer constructive editing of articles to hostile reverting and bickering," similarly, would presuppose an impossibly monolithic view. The "texts favor" this or that, you're really pushing it. The texts demonstrate partiality in one respect or another, this is fine. If you like the word "emphasize" better, then by all means, but it's not wrong as it stands. The pronoun "we" does not belong, either, so I worked it out of the sentence. I can't believe I have to point this out... DBaba (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be better to attribute the attitude to the texts rather than all of ancient India. This attitude towards chronology and philosophy is established on the basis of what was written down. The Indians did make extensive lists of kings and rulers of various kingdoms, which is a sort of chronology; they just generally made no attempt to correlate figures in the religious texts with figures in the chronologies. --Clay Collier (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• "favor ... establishing" You inserted non-parallel structure, which is poor style. Same thing with "parallel ... establishing" Mitsube (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you've got a point! Usually I think of parallelism as pertaining to clauses in a sentence with a conjunction. Perhaps this cause-effect relationship of clauses is wrong; could it be, if the sentence you reinserted and quoted above is correct? I don't really know. But I know Wikipedia is a better place without unfriendly and careless behavior. At least put the damn comma where it belongs. DBaba (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is as you say, and my writing is "clumsy, ugly, and unclear," my reverts "insolent" and "hair-trigger" and my behavior "unfriendly and careless." Even aside from these descriptions, you have had two good suggestions. Mitsube (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The sentence concerning the Buddhist and Jain texts is a bit of a run on, and it's a little unclear what is meant. I'm thinking that the intent is to say that the fact that the Buddhist accounts correspond with the Jain accounts mean that it's possible to regard these texts as containing some accurate historical information, rather than just mythology. --Clay Collier (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Buddha was Korean fabrication

Please note there is Internet lies going around online media and publications about Buddha was Korean. Please note this is lie made up by Chinese/Japanese nationalists to make fun at Koreans, this is very controversial claim coming out from Chinese/Japanese communities. Please add this controversial claim on the main article to show this isn't true. Please stop the spread of total fabrication. --Korsentry 02:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Buddha was not born in india

Conception and birth

Siddhartha was born in Lumbini[7] and raised in the small kingdom or principality of Kapilvastu, both of which are in modern day Nepal. Culturally, these can be considered part of the broader region of Ancient India.[8] <==== Nepal was originally a division of small countries and was never ever considered part of India please remove the bolded section.

Also change this: was a spiritual teacher in the northern region of the Indian subcontinent who founded Buddhism.

To: was a spiritual teacher from modern day Nepal who founded Buddhism.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.92.181 (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

But was it called Nepal back then? 217.42.58.20 (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This is such an old an annoying argument to me. Listen people then. He was born in Ancient India, in what is now known as Nepal then. 71.105.87.54 (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Was Ancient India called India back then? 86.136.143.144 (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

add to content death / nirvana

Thanks for creating such a very sublime article but without death word the word should be used as nirvana the death = death / nirvana .nirvana is standard word for death . Chakrashok (talk) 05:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)chakrashok

Articles are not written from the point of view of their subjects. The neutral word to use is "death". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Buddha DID NOT die of food poisoning

I tried to gather as much literature as possible after reading in Wikipedia that Buddha died of food poisoning! This is completely incorrect and is NOT supported by facts/references. Kindly remove it, as I am not allowed to edit this post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WetDesert (talk • contribs) 17:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

ok agree with your opinion - I read a lot about Buddha lately, and such a fact was nowhere to be seen (at least not conclusively)! Removed that statement for you. If anybody can find that Buddha died of food poisoning, with reliable references, please let me know. riteshlamsal 23:42, 8 March 2009

Thank you for removing dubious content not supported by references. I agree such claims should not be present without a reliable source as a reference. Chillum 18:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It's made pretty clear in the Maha-parinibbana Sutta:

verse 21:

And soon after the Blessed One had eaten the meal provided by Cunda the metalworker, a dire sickness fell upon him, even dysentery, and he suffered sharp and deadly pains. But the Blessed One endured them mindfully, clearly comprehending and unperturbed.

verse 23:"When he had eaten Cunda's food, I heard, / With fortitude the deadly pains he bore. /From the sukara-maddava a sore / And dreadful sickness came upon the Lord.

Also, from Heinz Bechert's article 'Buddha, Life of the' in the MacMillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism: "In Pava he accepted a meal from the smith Cunda, which caused a diarrhea that led to his death."

I've never read an account of the Buddha's life that didn't indicate that the proximate cause of his death was dysentery or some other side effect of the consumption of the food given to him by Cunda. Certainly the idea of the Buddha dying from food poisoning is resting on as solid a ground as any of the other information in the info box- it's much more well attested by the traditional accounts than the (overly specific) dates for his birth and death that are currently listed. Is there any alternative explanation for his proximate cause of death in any traditional account? --Clay Collier (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's widely agreed that the Buddha died after eating Cunda's food, and the authors/editors of the Mahaparinibbana Sutta do seem to believe that it was a case of food poisoning. In this article, Mettanando Bhikkhu, a monk who was previously a physician, argues that the Buddha died of a mesenteric infarction, a symptom of old age, rather than food poisoning.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 02:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That may not count as a reliable source, but an article jointly by Mettanando & Prof. von Hinüber saying the same appeared in the Journal of the Pali Text Society, a recognized scholarly periodical. Peter jackson (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you please give use more specific information about that article? Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If you go to [1] you can find a full list of contents for every volume of JPTS. Peter jackson (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I will put it in. A source can be seen as becoming reliable by being published in a reputable journal. However based on your statement I will source the statement to the journal of the Pali text society. Mitsube (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Another: Did Buddha die of mesenteric infarction? --Pawyilee (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hindu origins

Suryavanshi It is said here: "He also respected Buddha, who was also a Kshatriya from solar dynasty. In Buddhist literature he is addressed as "Pasenadi"."

• Solar Dynasty
• Pasenadi
• Gotra

Originally, the Kshatriya (warrior-nobles), too, had their own dynasties, the principal traditional ones being the Lunar and the Solar dynasties, to which the heroes of the Sanskrit epics the Mahabharata and the Ramayana respectively belonged.

taken from *Encyclopedia Britannica

In Hinduism Buddha has come to be considered an avatar of Vishnu, like Krishna and Rama. Vishnu the maintainer or preserver, I feel this should be mentioned.

-- 88.72.28.199 (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

A vast majority of pictures in this article are from the Gandhara era. Wouldn't it make sense to include more pictures of depiction of Buddha in other traditions? Khuft (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Teachings

I see someone's deleted the only citation I've been able to find saying what most scholars think. Peter jackson (talk) 09:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you remind me what you are referring to? Mitsube (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You can find it in Buddhism, unless someone's deleted it from there too. failing that, try my user page. Peter jackson (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the actual passage (Mitchell, Buddhism, 1st ed, Oxford University Press, 2002, page 34):

"As for his specific teachings, scholars have always debated about what the Buddha actually taught, since even the earliest texts that record his teachings were written down hundreds of years after his death. However, scholars usually agree that there are certain basic teachings, which, since they are presented in so many places throughout the early texts, must represent at least the kinds of things the Buddha actually taught. In this chapter, we will examine some of these basic teachings ..."

The associated list I simply took from the table of contents. Peter jackson (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the list for convenience:

• the three characteristics
• the five aggregates
• dependent arising
• karma and rebirth
• the four noble truths
• the eightfold path
• nirvana

Subheadings omitted. Peter jackson (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop removing relevant external links

I'm trying to add a good reference and relevant link to the External Links section, and people kept on removing it. Why? What's your intention and reason? Why don't you go look at the site and verify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deeptii (talk • contribs) 03:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Is it your website? Have you read WP:EL? In any case, there should only be about 5 or so links, there are already too many. Dougweller (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject and undue weight

That Baha'is see the Buddha as one a series of messengers named Manifestations of God does not make this article of primary importance to the Baha'i Faith. When people think of the Buddha they think of Buddhism and possibly Hinduism as the Buddha came from a society that practiced Hinduism. Secondly, the population of Baha'is is much less that Buddhists and Hindus and making the Baha'i wikiproject on equal standing as the other wikiprojects is undue weight. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not associated with this WikiProject, but I believe every WikiProject has the right to tag any article they consider within their scope. You say that "Baha'is see the Buddha as one a series of messengers named Manifestations of God", so clearly this article must be within their scope. Also, WP:UNDUE doesn't look like it applies to talk page banners. —Ms2ger (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

One person tagging an article for a Wikiproject does not mark the decision of the whole wikiproject. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE has nothing to do with what project tags a talk page for inclusion. If the people from the Baha'i Faith project take an interest in this article, that's fine; changes to the article itself that make primary a Baha'i perspective on the Buddha might constitute undue weight, but nothing is affected by having the project tag. Likewise, there's no requirement of a majority or consensus of project participants to tag an article for inclusion in the project's scope. If you don't feel this article falls within Wikipedia:WikiProject Baha'i Faith's scope, then I would suggest that you start a discussion about it on their project talk page rather than here. If there is consensus among the Wikipedia:WikiProject Baha'i Faith people that this is an article that is in the scope of their work, then there is absolutely no reason to remove the tag. --Clay Collier (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the policy is here. I wonder whether there's a superstition project. Perhaps they'd want all religion articles included. Peter jackson (talk) 10:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Musicians story?

I am interested to trace the appearance and disappearance of the 'musicians story' within the 'Departure' (aka Renunciation / Great Departure / Departure and Asceticism) section of the article on Gautama Buddha.

On 26 April 2008, SkE edited the page so that it included: 'After nearly starving himself to death by restricting his food intake to around a leaf or nut per day, he collapsed in a river while bathing and almost drowned. Siddhartha began to reconsider his path. As he laid there, a boat passed him and he overheard the conversation that the two musicians aboard it were saying: "If you tighten the string too tight it will snap, but if it is too loose it will not play." From this, he realised that he would have to take a "middle-way" to reach enlightenment and not by using extremes. Then, he remembered a moment in childhood in which he had been watching his father start the season's plowing, and he had fallen into a naturally concentrated and focused state that was blissful and refreshing, the jhana.'

This account lasts until Mamta Dhody's edit of 17 Aug 2008, when the musicians story disappears: 'After nearly starving himself to death by restricting his food intake to around a leaf or nut per day, he collapsed in a river while bathing and almost drowned. Siddhartha began to reconsider his path. Then, he remembered a moment in childhood in which he had been watching his father start the season's plowing, and he had fallen into a naturally concentrated and focused state that was blissful and refreshing, the jhana.'

I can't see any reason why this musicians story disappears. Is it merely because it is unreferenced (or untraceable)? Or has it been decided to be spurious?

I would love to hear from SkE or Mamta Dhody or indeed anyone who can help me trace the provenanace of this story, or alternatively comment on why it was cut out, as I am hoping to trace it and refer to it in an academic article I am writing on Buddhism and music.

Also it seems like full reference to 'Narada (1992)' in the footnotes has been lost. I recall from previous versions it was Narada Mahathera, _The Buddha and his Teachings_ that was referred to, but this is no longer explicit.

Thanks for your help and forgive me if this in an unusual message to post here - although I am a committed scholar I am not experienced in Wikipedia editorial practice!

Bethany. 90.203.52.8 (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That story's one I've never heard before. An obvious question is how is it decided which stories should be mentioned? Hardly anything is accepted by consensus of scholars as historical fact. Peter jackson (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello-- that is a commonly accepted version of what happened to Gautama at the river, the hearing of the discussion between the father and son on the boat. Why was it removed? Poor soul, keep a closer watch here and find out why it was removed! And to the brave Mr. Jackson: I have only one departure point for you to consider... how many "scholars" actually do any work here? By the way, I recommend the studying of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra to anyone interested in these stories of the Buddha. Of course there are jatakas (and I'm sure some smarty-pants will come and argue that name as well); these are stories of the Buddha's previous incarnations, which sometimes explain later stories about the Buddha's experiences and actions. Have a lovely WikiPee-dia day!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.112.123 (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Commonly accepted by whom?
2. What river?
3. By scholars doing work "here", do you mean "here", ie Wikipedia, or "here", ie on the topic of the Buddha's life story?
4. What do you mean by "Mahaparinirvana Sutra"? Do you mean the early text included in the Pali Canon, which I've read quite a few times, & which certainly doesn't mention this story? Or do you mean the Mahayana text written several centuries later, which I haven't read, so possibly does?

Peter jackson (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I had a good read through this whole talk page before I posted the comment above, and have gathered no hints about the musicians story. I don't understand the comment 'Poor soul, keep a closer watch here and find out why it was removed' by unsigned-75 since I thought I had kept a very close watch! I have found the Narada book (mentioned above) and it is not from the biographical chapters of that. I'm guessing that nobody has any leads, and this story will have to be considered apocryphal. Thanks! Bethany 90.213.216.104 (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Reference for date of birh/death does not work

What is now citation number 2 ("more recently, however, at a specialist symposium on this question,[2] the majority of those scholars who presented definite opinions gave dates within 20 years either side of 400 BCE for the Buddha's death, with others supporting earlier or later dates") has a broken link. Does anyone have a working link to this or should this be considered unsupported by facts and therefore omitted? 82.148.70.130 (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC) KJG

The link works just fine for me at the moment. --Clay Collier (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

self link - correction needed

please remove the link to Buddha in this article as it now refers back to this article. snake (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)jjs

Minor Edit request

can someone change the caption "Buddha with his protector Vajrapani, Gandhara, 2nd century CE, Ostasiatische Kunst Museum" to Buddha with his protector Vajrapani, Gandhara, 2nd century CE, Museum für Asiatische Kunst, Berlin"? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.128.239 (talk) 10:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wives and children

His father king sent him many women, in 16 to 29 he might have more sons. Some buddhist accounts did not taboo it.

Wives:

Gopika and Yaśodharā Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom

Yaśodharā, Manodhara and Gotami The Collective Sutra of the Buddha's Past Acts

Yaśodharā, Gopika and Mrgaja [2] [3] [4]

Sons:

Upamaana[5]

Upamaana and Sunakssatra[6]

A man wrote he met reincarnations of the wives and children.佛祖也瘋狂 It may be a story.Paulsmitht (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide some English-language sources? Many editors do not read Chinese, and this makes it difficult to assess the linked sources. A search on Google books or scholar for the proper names mentioned might yield some information. --Clay Collier (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Dīrgha Āgama and Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom are very old texts. See also the Japanese wikipedia pages about Sunakssatra (善星), Upamaana (優波摩那) and Yaśodharā (耶輸陀羅).Paulsmitht (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've heard this before, that Siddhartha had a number of wives or concubines, with Yaśodharā as his primary wife. I never thought it was particularly controversial a claim. Note, however, that not all biographical description of the Buddha's life were written by the same person and they cannot necessarily be expected to all accord with each other.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 16:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

We should recognize them. Although Siddhartha had a bad name for returned home from the Sangha and "said reach enlightenment and fell to the avici" and Upamaana appeared little in buddhist accounts.Paulsmitht (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Buddha was born and raised in Lumbini as Siddhartha Gautama who afterwards got his inlightment and known as Buddha,where as he is known as son of Nepal also, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.45.151 (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Buddha was born and raised in Lumbini , Nepal as Siddhartha Gautama who afterwards got his inlightment and known as Buddha,where as he is known as son of Nepal also —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.45.151 (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the above one with bad name in Buddhism is Sunakssatra, not Siddhartha.Paulsmitht (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Spelling error

Under the section "Conception and Birth" there is a typo:

"According to the traditional biography, his father was King Suddhodana, the leader of Shakya clan, whos capital was Kapilavastu"

whos should be changed to whose.

--rrowv (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The Buddha also belived in the "2012" theorey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amlovesjr (talk • contribs) 23:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The Buddha now

Now the buddha's body lies in Watashiwa, Japan. The insription: Wa°tashiwa al‘’ong de wert′ishwa onigeya, are on his grave stone.; meaning "The great leader of a great land". [The insription is spelled how it sounds]

--Amlovesjr (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Insert non-formatted text here

"Watashiwa" means "I" in Japanese. 86.136.57.254 (talk) 11:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Was Buddha a Buddhist?

Was Buddha actually a Buddhist? 217.42.58.20 (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It would seem that he was a Hindu. 86.136.57.254 (talk) 01:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Buddha was born in Hindu family, so he was Hindu and later he found his way of life "Buddhism" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.148.91 (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The Buddha was not a Buddhist. Buddhism is a religion, a deity-based beleif system founded hundreds of years after his death--the Buddha may have been a spiritual teacher and an enlightened person, but he did not found a religion. That was done by his followers, long after he was gone and could say anything about it. For a man who was more concerned with liberating people then accruing a mass following, I find it more then a bit disgraceful to have reduced the Buddha down to some kind of preachy guru whose only goal was to attract disciples. An opinionated view, perhaps, but there is truth in saying that at no time did Buddha claim himself a god, nor did he ever wish to create a sect. His primary interest was in the teaching of the Dhamma (or Dharma in Sanskrit, whichever you prefer). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.65.161 (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If Buddha was not a Buddhist and was not the founder of Buddhism, could the article be changed and state that? 86.176.51.166 (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Physical charateristics of Buddha

In the physical characteristics of Buddha then, shouldn't it say how he was from Northern India and might have had Northern Indian features? And how he probably had the characteristics of the people their today then? And how their are many people who think he might have looked East Asian because of art made, sculputures, and statues then, but he was actually a person then who was from Northern India here? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Buddha's psychology

It would appear that buddha's behavior had in common with what is called the male menopause or mid-life crisis nowadays. He walked out on his wife and child(ren) and maybe concubines and responsibilies, and claimed to search for a way to the meaning of life by living a lazy and unproductive life. It is definitely not uncommon in the western world nowadays with many men doing exactly the same thing. I dare say it has existed throughout the whole of human history and societies. It makes interesting reading when you were once rich and powerful, with a more recent example of the late British king Edward VIII, than if you were simply a Tom, Dick or Harry. Another recent example in the news is Mr Tiger Woods. It was people centuries later who turned it into a "religious" belief. 86.136.143.144 (talk) 11:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

he was a prince that left his good life to becomesarra —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.19.79.130 (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The article states: "Deeply depressed by these sights, he sought to overcome old age, illness, and death by living the life of an ascetic." Clearly Buddha failed in his quest to overcome old age, illness and death by living the life of an ascetic. To have the answers to his questions, the Buddha should really have studied modern science, which was unavailable to him, and would not come for another 2500 years. Should Buddha be alive today, no doubt he would urge people to study the sciences for answers to his quest. 86.176.51.166 (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

He overcame them in two ways; he did not mentally suffer because of them, and after the end of his life he never had to experience them again. Good observation though. Mitsube (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

But most people do not suffer mentally because of old age, illness and death. You don't need to be a buddha not to suffer mentally. What's so special? 86.176.188.112 (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Etymology of "buddha"

Under the heading Enlightenment where it reads Gautama, from then on, was known as the Buddha or "Awakened One", I propose to add [note 1] for clarification, but won't do it unless other editors concur. To see how my proposed revision would look, please view References - Notes in my sandbox. Leave comments here or on my sandbox's talk page. As I've saved a copy of my edit, others are free to edit what's there.--Pawyilee (talk) 10:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No one commented, but one one objected, either. I posted [Note 1] to end of sentence in intro that reads "Buddha" meaning "awakened one" or "the enlightened one." The note now appears on top of the list of in-line references. Turner's Dictionary uses many symbols and abbreviations, which I spelled out according to his definitions thereof, and linked them all to explanatory articles. --Pawyilee (talk) 11:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of important fact

Does anyone else think that this is a problem? It is very important to note that many details of the Buddha's biography as presented in the Buddhist texts are mythologized. Mitsube (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

LuxNevada, wikipedia is written using reliable secondary sources. Scholars always mention the unreliability of the traditional account when describing the Buddha's biography. Mitsube (talk) 07:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Problem with attacks on traditional accounts

The current text reads "According to the traditional biography - to which modern scholars give little credence, aside from the broad outline". The problem here is weasel phrases like "modern scholars", "little credence", and "broad outline". If it were established scholarly consensus it would be one thing, however it is no such thing. Only one historian Lopez is quoted. If "modern scholars" disagree with the "traditional biography" then the proper thing to do would be to have a section of what "modern scholars" believe, and to list who these "scholars" are. However, keeping on criticizing the "traditional biography" based on the work of a few historians (out of literally thousands) is not proper. LuxNevada (talk) 08:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Lopez makes a statement about scholars in general. If you dispute it, find a reliable source doing so. That's how wikipedia works. In this article, both Carrithers and Lopez are cited saying the same thing. Not that it is necessary, but you may be interested in reading more statements about the non-historical nature of the biography: "The historical Buddha's name was Gautama in Sanskrit. There is now a more or less established (Gethin, Sayings of the Buddha, Oxford World Classics, 2008, page xv), though not final (Keown & Prebish, eds, Encyclopedia of Buddhism, Routledge, 2007, page 107), consensus for a death date around 400 BC. Historians accept that he lived, taught and founded a monastic order, but cannot easily accept most details in his biographies (Buswell, ed, Encyclopedia of Buddhism, Macmillan, 2004, Volume One, page 352)." This is from User:Peter jackson's user page. Mitsube (talk) 09:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If Lopez says something, it should be mentioned it is Lopez's opinion. There are a ton of opinions out there, and no consensus of the kind that the article text seems to imply. LuxNevada (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That is simply wrong. Can you find one scholar who things the traditional biography is true? I have statements saying that scholars agree on it being untrue, or at least not credible. Mitsube (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, the point is that it is good writing style to have single topics at a time. So talk about tradition in one place and then at another place you can point out what historians say about tradition. It is bad style to say "The tradition says - which historians deny - that blah, blah, blah" LuxNevada (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not true. It is important to let people know just what they are reading. Mitsube (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)