Talk:The Buddha

Gautama Buddha or Buddha Gautama

Gautama Buddha is the correct rendering of title and name in Sanskrit. All the Buddhas are referred to this way consistently in all original Sanskrit sutras. Kanaka Buddha and Krakucanda Buddha, historical Buddhas preceeding Shakyamuni in Kapilavastu, were referred to in this manner in Buddha's own time.

VERY DISTURBING IS THE FACT THAT SEVERAL EXTENDED SECTIONS OF THIS ARTICLE ARE DIRECTLY PLAGIARIZED FROM ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA ONLINE!! THIS ARTICLE USES ENTIRE SECTIONS OF COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL, INLCUDING ILLUSTRATIONS.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.245.97 (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

Certainly, there are many con-artists in the world out there today who do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.177.167 (talk) 07:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

100% i am agree about the above idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oshanz (talk • contribs) 08:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Kshitij.raj.lohani, 21 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} there is written that Gautam Buddha is from ancient India. But thats not true. Though he went to India for learning and meditating he is originally from NEPAL

Kshitij.raj.lohani (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

129.10.229.128 (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC) then can you provide me a reliable source which shows Buddha was born in India.

In the Mahaparinibbana Sutra, Buddha's birthplace is decsribed as Kapilavastu (Sanskrit spelling), being near Devadaha, and the River Rohini, all of which are located in the Western Terai of Nepal, some 30 miles from India. Ashoka raised a pillar on the site of Lumbini gardens, which Maya's entourage reached in the same day leaving from Tilaurakot, the citadel of Kapilavastu. Therfore, Lumbini cannot be more than a day's walk from Tilaurakot (royalty were borne on litters carried by footmen in those days). There are a number of archaeological investigations that confirm this matter. Kapilavastu is also described as sitting atop a mesa (or table land), which you do not find on the Uttar Pradesh side of the border in the region Buddha is said to have been born, no do you find this terrain in Bihar nearby. You find the mesa lands only once you cross into Nepal, as you begin to reach the first hills of the Himalaya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.245.97 (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Shreyashb, 20 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Buddha was born in modern day Lumbini, Nepal. It is totally wrong to say that he was from ancient India, since Nepal was never a part of India and there was no place called "India" either. There were small states ruled by kings in South East Asia. I request you to change the sentence that says he was born in ancient India to he was born in Modern day Nepal.

Shreyashb (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

As evidenced by the many denied requests for the exact same change above, this is far from an uncontentious assertion. Please establish a consensus on the talk page before using {{edit semi-protected}}. Intelligentsium 02:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

THE ABOVE IS QUITE TRUE: Jambudvipa was the name in use for Indic realms at the time, not INdia. AS well, there were the 16 Mahajanapada, referred to in the Mahaparinibbana sutta, most of which are named at some point in the sutta pitaka. Nepal didn't exist yet, either. There is plenty of archaeological evidence that Lumbini is in Nepal, one of them being a pillar erected by Ashoka at Lumbini, another being Fo Xian's very early description of the Shakya kingdom as being two days north of Shravasti, which sits very near the border of Nepal. North of Shravasti is necessarily in Nepal of today. There is not much India left once one travels north from Shravasti.

There is an awful lot of politicking going on with the Buddhist pages, all of which makes Wikipedia look bad.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.245.97 (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Typos

There is some typos in Departure and ascetic life section.

Guatama instead Gautama or Gotama

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.220.232.61 (talk) 06:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 188.39.23.69, 19 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Gautama Buddha was from Nepal. But In the Article in the top its given "was a spiritual teacher from ancient India" which is wrong. Please consider and stop giving people wrong information. There are many groups in facebook who appose to this and once people know the fact that he was from Nepal then Wiki has a bad name for giving wrong information. 188.39.23.69 (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliable source then request the change again. CTJF83 chat 15:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Pali or Sanskrit?

Why is the Sanskrit name Siddhartha Gautama (and, by extension, Gautama Buddha) the title of the article and first in the opening paragraph, while the Pali (Siddhattha Gotama) is relegated to parenthesis? Can anyone provide a valid reason why the Sanskrit is given precedence? Mahayanic Chauvinism, or allegations thereof, is a major issue in the Buddhist cultural world and we scholars/encyclopedians of the West need to be careful not to fall into any traps of the Mahayana-centered viewpoint. The Theravada (Pali) comes from earlier sources and may, to that extent, be more attested. I would like to open discussion on this issue. 216.67.39.158 (talk) 12:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sanskrit is a formal language not associated with any one Buddhist tradition, whereas Pali is a specific prakrit language which is used by only one Buddhist tradition. It is worth noting that Sanskrit is not the language of Mahayana Buddhism, but rather a common formal language that was slowly adopted by the various early Buddhist schools, although there were some that used prakrits such as the Mahavihara Theravadins and the Mahasamghikas. Sanskrit is also the lingua franca for studies in early Buddhism, which you may observe in many books written by the most well-known and respected Buddhologists. Besides these points about the two languages, Siddhartha Gautama is the more widely attested name in English. Tengu800 (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The above answer is a good one. As well, Pali is a language proved by etymological linguists to have derived from Sanskrit. AS well, Sanskrit was the language of learning and royalty, which Buddha would certainly have spoken very well. There is no evidence that Pali was in use at this time. Pali derives as an ecclesiatical language under the influence of Buddhism in central and southern India and has typical characteristics of the Malayalam and Dravidian languages of those areas. Pali is a southern dialect of Sanskrit that was established after Buddha died in the church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.245.97 (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a C-class article: what is the editorial plan for improvement?

It is genuinely difficult to look at this article and respond with "constructive criticism" because there are fundamental errors that are even built into the structure of the article itself. This may be an example of a subject whereof the Wikipedia's method of "circular" editing doesn't work, partly because you're reliant upon (1) primary source texts of entirely different historical periods as (2) reflected through secondary texts of different academic disciplines.

I think that J. Schober herself would be horrified at the use that is now made of her name in this article: do the editors collectively mean to assert that the Jataka fables are antecedent to the material in the Pali suttapitaka? No, probably not, but somehow the "circular" mode of authorship has ended up asserting this, without any one person making this (self-evidently absurd) decision; if you read the article from the start, you would conclude that the editors had somehow attributed the primacy of Jataka material to Schober's opinion in the middle of that argument.

Meanwhile, someone with another religious bias entirely has opened the article with the notion that primacy should be given to Aśvaghoṣa (2nd century A.D. = much, much more recent than the Pali suttas, folks!) on the spurious grounds that it is a more "complete" biography than what you find in the Pali canon. Apart from the fact that this is an anachronistic argument, and relies on a very poetic notion of what "completeness" means (or why it matters as historical evidence), the now extant work of Aśvaghoṣa is itself incomplete. (If you don't believe me, you can verify this through the magic of google in about five seconds, e.g., "The existing Sanskrit manuscripts are incomplete...", Hajime Nakamura, 1987, Indian Buddhism: a survey with bibliographical notes, p. 133, et seq.)

The article should be restructured to reflect evidence from different periods (and different cultures of origin); in effect, this would cease to conflate (historically and culturally) separate narratives that have developed around the figure of the Buddha. For a less religiously-charged example to consider: Heracles was re-interpreted in an amazing variety of cultures, but if you're attempting to present a "biography" of "the historical heracles" you can't conflate material from ancient Central Asia and what's now Iran (where, indeed, Heracles was adopted and re-interpreted, all the way down the road to China). The latter material could be included, under separate headings, but it would be massively confusing to conflate it with the earliest extant materials from ancient Greece (regardless of however tenuous the connection may be in linking even those Greek materials to a putative historical figure who inspired the legends of Heracles).

You might as well have section 1 or 2 of this article being "The Buddha in the earliest extant Pali sources", and then have a separate section describing the later elaboration of the myth in Sanskrit sources (that are several centuries later, NB) such as Aśvaghoṣa, the Lalitavistara, etc., through to the relatively recent Tibetan, Chinese and Southeast Asian sources (dare I mention Japan?).

The fact of the matter is that even a much more narrowly focused article (dealing with the earliest period only, and limited to India only) would need to separate the evidence found in the Pali suttas from the Vinaya, from the Jatakas and then treat the Nidanakatha in another category entirely (the latter is 5th century A.D., i.e., even later than Ashvaghosa, folks, something discussed in the closing sections of this essay, by the way, http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/12/30/the-buddha-was-bald/ )

Although there have doubtless been plenty of people with good intentions involved in contributing to this thing, it is really difficult to imagine it getting better, and easy to imagine it getting worse. The purpose of an encyclopedia entry cannot be the conflation of evidence from different historical periods, different languages, and different cultures, often separated by considerable gaps of geography as well. I mention the example of Heracles quite intentionally: nobody would say that the Central Asian re-interpretation of Heracles should be excluded from an encyclopedia, but you can't conflate it with (earlier and geographically separate) material from Greece. A good encyclopedia can certainly reflect all of this evidence, but must be very clear about the different periods of time (and different languages sources) that the various versions of the legend originate from.

The biography of the Buddha is probably an unusually difficult task for "decentralized editing", because the editors need to set down guidelines and provide a structure for the article (that would then have consistent standards, requiring clear secondary sources for historical claims made in each section, appealing to different literary corpuses in the salient section only, etc.) or else they need to split the article into several separate articles, and then strictly limit what can be in this central article linking to the others (e.g., you could have a separate article on "The Historical Buddha as Depicted in Sri Lankan Tradition", as opposed to separate articles broaching the Buddha "...as depicted in... x, y & z"; this is not a strategy I'd prefer, but it may be the only one that works, in part because Wikipedia relies on editors with separate competences, and you can't expect the same people to have expertise spanning from Thailand to Tibet). 119.82.253.185 (talk) 08:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

"Complete biography" refers to a text for which the purpose is to relate the story of the life of Gautama -- a pretty simple definition. Prior to the Buddhacarita, or perhaps early editions of the Mahavastu (some scholars say that its earliest editions date to the 2nd century BCE), I don't believe there is any biography. As for the Buddhacarita being incomplete, this is not true because a complete edition of this text exists in the Chinese Buddhist canon. It is only the Sanskrit manuscripts which are incomplete, which is typical due to their means of preservation, or lack thereof.

The lateness of the Nidanakatha was stated clearly in the article. As for the Sutra Pitaka and so on, it does not amount to a biography of the Buddha, since its contents have no clear chronological order, and generally say little about the actual person of Gautama (if such a person indeed existed). Still, two important sutras from the Pali Canon are given, which do provide early biographical information, and these are clearly stated in the article. Both give a supernatural / miraculous accounts of the Buddha's birth and previous lives, which seems to have been typical in pre-sectarian times, and is echoed in the Jatakas. The dating of the biographies discussed is clearly stated, so I don't quite understand what all the whining is about. The Theravadin account of Gautama's life seems to be based primarily around the Nidanakatha, which as you already stated, is the last major biography, dated to a relatively late period. Tengu800 (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The comment from Tengu800 is completely absurd: if this encyclopedia entry IS NOT about the Nidanakatha, nor about the Buddhacarita (those both have their own Wikipedia pages!). This is supposed to be an encyclopedia entry about the Buddha, which is to say "the historical Buddha and also a spectrum of mythological Buddhas". As with many other figures treated in an encyclopedia, historical material needs to be set out clearly alongside pseudo-history and mythology from various periods and sources (without conflating them). Please reconsider the points raised above. As of early 2011, this article is a shameful mess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.82.253.185 (talk) 09:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The page as it is currently written, seems to be based mostly on the Theravada account in the Nidanakatha. If that source were completely disregarded, it would be interesting to see what depiction of the Buddha would be given, and which sources would be used. Remember that many of the earliest sources also have material that would see "mythological" to many today. For example, in one Pali sutra, the Buddha licks his entire face with his supernaturally long tongue, to prove his distinctive marks. In the same sutra, he uses his supernatural abilities to show the same person that his penis is retractible into his body. Not to mention sutras like those mentioned on the current page, which mention the supernatural events surrounding the birth of the Buddha. It would also have to include some material from the Jatakas about his previous lives, as the Jatakas are dated among the very earliest Buddhist texts, using the methods of metrical analysis, dating to the 4th century BCE. Tengu800 (talk) 12:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Gautama and India vs. Nepal... again...

It is not fair to write just "Siddhārtha Gautama (Sanskrit: सिद्धार्थ गौतम; Pali: Siddhattha Gotama) was a spiritual teacher from ancient India who founded Buddhism." when Your wikipedia article already states the birth place of Gautam buddha Lumbini, Nepal..... Is it fair to say just he was from Ancient India? " whose place of birth is said to be Lumbini, Modern Nepal" must be added, otherwise it seems like wikipedia gives emphasis on saying he was from INDIA and showing partiality when everyone's biography strongly starts with the birth place, this article doesn't even talk about his bith place, thats not at all fair. .... If we look into the biography of Prophet Mohammad too...........

Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh (Arabic: ﷴ; Transliteration: Muḥammad;[n 1] pronounced [mʊˈħæmmæd] ( listen); also spelled Muhammed or Mohammed)[n 2][n 3] (ca. 570/571 – June 8, 632),[1] (Monday, 12th Rabi' al-Awwal, Year 11 A.H.) was the founder[n 4] of the religion of Islam,[2]...................

"""""""""""Born in 570 in the Arabian city of Mecca,"""""[8] ................. It clearly states the place of birth and Date.. why not in case of Gautam Buddha..... So information about the place of birth must also be stated! "Siddhārtha Gautama (Sanskrit: सिद्धार्थ गौतम; Pali: Siddhattha Gotama) was a spiritual teacher from ancient India who founded Buddhism is said to be born in Lumbini, Modern Nepal! or Lumbini, Ancient India now in Nepal... I look forward to this ammendement, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishchal pandey (talk • contribs) 06:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe this is still being debated. We have setteled this and yet people like you keep changing it. The sentence should be, that Buddha was from Ancient India, in what is now Lumbini Nepal. It should not be one. It should be both. Why do you want to change the fact that back in the days it was all one sphere? There was no Nepal or India. It was Land of the Aryans or Bharat. It was all one land. 71.106.83.19 (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Who is Lord Gautam Buddha?

Lord Gautam Buddha is the Light of the Universe not only the Light of the Asia!Gautam Buddha was physically born in Nepal. He is formless God come to play Divine Plays to teach people how to get enlightened(From mind to soul) or free from suffering,In other words to attained liberation .There is still proof of his divine play from birth to end in Kapilvastu, Lumbini(Nepal). He forbid his disciple don`t pray by making his idol.Once he spoke that " You are also Buddha, I am also Buddha difference is that I am aware of it but you are still in deep sleep. " He has taught how to realize the universal truth! the ultimate truth. Truth is God. According to Lord Gotama Buddha, "All the people in this earth are Buddha. All have Buddha(Self)nature. Here, the Self indicates SOUL. Every living being have Soul. This soul or self nature is Buddha nature. Nowadays people have many paths(ways) to pray or worship the God. There are so many ways but the goal is same. Hence, what the Lord Gotama Buddha saying is that "This world itself is Gumba(Monastery) where Buddha resides. Your Body itself is Gumba (Monastery)where the Lord Gotama Buddha resides. There is only one religion the religion of Love. There is only one caste, the caste of humanity & there is only one God he is Omnipresent! He did not come to established new sect what nowadays people are saying Buddhism, Hindu, Christian, Muslim etc. These are the human made label(Name). He came to this earth to show the whole humanity:the right way! Gotama Buddha infact himself is Supreme One. You may find somewhere his pose indicating I am the Supreme One. But he never talk about God or Soul. He refused to answer such questions.Infact, religion and Dhamma are different word and differnt meaning. Name can be changed, form can be changed but the Dhamma can not be change. Dhamma means the law of nature. Dhamma means the quality of element,the self nature! Let us say the sun in the sky gives light and heat and it is Dhamma of the SUN. However, without the Dhamma of the Sun, there is no life in this earth similarly without the Self(soul)there is no life of living beings. If we follow our self, we never make mistake.But, if we follow our mind(Monkey mind) we may do many many mistake. Hence,Once Buddha spoke that "Ahimsa Parmo Dhamma." If you wake up from yourself, you never do himsa. He came to this earth to unite the people,not divide the people. God never discriminate same like the sun in the sky never discriminate among the living and non living beings. The Lord Buddha`s Dharsan often termed as ShunayaBad. It means he can be visible and invisible. He comes from Zero (0) and merge with Zero (0). He is immortal. He has no start no end. He is omnipresent, omnopotent and omnificent. "You are also Buddha, find Buddha nature in yourself". This is Lord Buddhas profound saying. He was for whole world, He is for whole world and he will be for whole world. His divine play is for whole humanity! This is fact! He did not come to this earth to make sect. The term "Buddha" indicates the selfnature i.e. quality. Infact, the religion is a Greek word which is combination of two words: Re+Ligion. Re= Again, and Ligion= Join back with Supreme one! Hence, the Love is the royal road to close with Supreme one. The main objectives of spiritual (Dhamma) practice is Realising that All is One and One is all. Infact, all are interconnected and interrelated. Blind leads Blinds. Infact, Blind can`t leads the Blind, enlightened one leads the World! Books for Reference- 1)Dhamma- An art of Living (By: Satya Naryan Goenka) 2) Characterology ( By Swami Sachchidananda BishuddaDev) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.148.213.156 (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

A person can't be born in india when there was no india.

Buddha was born in Nepal not in india. Country called india exists only after 1947. But Nepal where buddha was born has been in existence as an independent country since centuries ago. How stupid is it to say someone who born thousands of years ago in a country that has no history of even 100 years. Few century ago as British merged several independent kingdoms together and start calling it india that's how the country got created where you are claiming Buddha was born. But buddha was born in independent Nepal thousands of years ago than the time when British were colonizing the remaining kingdoms in south asia naming it as a whole india. So either open this article to edit or put a notice in your encyclopedia that "only what we think is right no volunteer correction are allowed". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.28.207 (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ancient India does not refer to the modern state of India, but rather to the ancient region of India. It is true that the region that is now known as Nepal has a long history, and that Gautama was born there. However, most consider this to be a part of the region of ancient India. Considering that the first reliable reference to Nepal seems to be in an inscription stating that the ruler of from this region paid tributes ($$$) to the Gupta empire, so I don't think that Nepal and India have a clear and distinct history. The same would be true of Pakistan, and most Buddhologists will describe Kashmir as being in Northwest India, rather than describing these in terms of the modern political states. On a different note, it seems interesting that the major reason for flooding the talking page with this content is purely nationalistic rather than religious or historical. Most Nepalese are not Buddhists, but Hindus. Tengu800 (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

can't stop laughing after reading the sentences above. Nepal is a region? what a wisdom! a country having thousand years of history and recognized by UN, is a region for some people. what's the point of diverting the subject to different topics. what is here to do about arguing what Nepal used to do in stone age? with Buddha being born in Nepal. Nothing can be hilarious than this.Firstly, Buddism is a way of life before becoming a religion. Buddha had never wished to create another separate "religion". He showed human life the way to enlightment. The word religion is curse for human life which divides people into different groups. Buddha never wanted to create another division among people. But this wicked world turned it into another religion. In Nepal most of the people respect Buddha as a holy human soul and his philosophy regardless of what their so called "religion" seems to be. Secondly, time ain't remains the same always, it can't be said a philosophy once got popular will be in the same popularity after thousands of year. After all world has became so wild now, decent thoughts rarely get larger numbers of followers these days. Jesus is believed to born in Israel but the population of that country is ruled by Jews.So it's pointless to argue with the relevancy of the history with present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.136.66 (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Laugh it up, but Nepal did not even include Lumbini until recently in history. Nepal was historically a smaller state than it is now, before the Gurkhas expanded the country in the 18th century.

Chapter 27, page 195

Tengu800 (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

what do you mean by recent history, 2011 or 1947? lol.. Lumbini is Nepal long before even you were born. Nepal has a history of having several autonomous states and being reunited in unitary system.Lumbini never was isolated from the greater Nepal boundary, it has always been Nepal. your argument is so incoherent that doesn't give a clear idea whether you want to stick to present or past. your references of 18th century gives a clue of past, so are you talking about freedom from the word india which is a pain in ass for south asia. ok then let's talk about independent Kashmir,sikkim,punjab etc.. and bring the existence of india to an end, if you really want to go back. if u go back to history, 1947 is the farthest you can go, before that you don't exist. so bear that in mind if you really want to go back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.248.19 (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Why don`t use "Modern Nepal" in place of "Ancient India"

Without being biased we can use like-"Gautam Buddha, a spiritual teacher and founder of Buddhism was born in Lumbini of modern Nepal". I dont know why do you love the term `ancient India`? Instead It may be like-"at the time when Buddha was born Lumbini was the federal state under a powerful kingdom which now lies in India". And I want to make clear that yes, most of the Nepalese are hindus and not buddhist but that is not the controling idea that Buddha was or was not born in Nepal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke147 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the main difficult was how to present both sides of the matter. He was born in Kapilavastu and lived there for much of his life, but when he left home, he essentially went into the region which is now India. After that point, his main teaching was in northeast India. In any case, I made an edit which hopefully will clarify the matter and show both sides early on, without being awkward or detracting from the rest of the introduction. Tengu800 (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Why partiality with india- because they are bigger,economically stronger,more influential,they got advanced as British colonization accelerated their development speed?

In most sentences and references to Nepal in this article, it says "now in" Nepal. But why not the same with india? like this one - "in what is now Nepal, and later to have taught primarily throughout regions of eastern India such as Magadha and Kośala." Using phrase like -in what is now Nepal- with a country which has a thousand years of history and not doing the same with country which came to an existence just from last century.What an inferior "encyclopedic" language ! Are we really talking about a decent history here? or a self motivated exaggerated claims inspired by larger,stronger,more powerful country backed up with the same kind of influential countries of the 21st century? should everyone believe this as an "encyclopedia"?

Because "India" includes a large geographic area that has been known to the West and the rest of the world since ancient times. This should not be confused with the modern state of India. "India" is also the standard name used in Buddhology and other fields for that region. In contrast, Nepal's territory did not even include Lumbini until the 18th century. But really, I doubt you or others like yourself will read or consider these points, as you are simply trolling as a nationalist. Tengu800 (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Sakya vs. Shakya

I notice article uses both renderings. While I'm certain that both are valid, it probably would make sense if the article stuck to one.69.112.90.253 (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)