Jump to content

Talk:The Buddha: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 187: Line 187:
<ref></ref>http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/666
<ref></ref>http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/666
:The article already reflects the UNESCO listing. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 12:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
:The article already reflects the UNESCO listing. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 12:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

== vesaka misspelled as vesak ==

can someone change?

Revision as of 18:20, 25 September 2013

Buddha general description

Buddha was born In Nepal  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.90.236.12 (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha was born in Nepal.

No mention of India

Whenever their is an article about someone, you are suppose to mention the country they are from. Everyone (except Nepali people) will tell you that Buddha was born in Ancient India. So why is that not in the first sentence? Now for those of you who hate India, you can say he was from ANCIENT INDIA...or...if you really hate india, you can say he was from ANCIENT INDIA, in what is now known as Nepal...

By the way, in all the other Buddhism articls, it is mentioned that he was from Ancient India. Except here, the article about Buddha?.....does that make sense?

72.67.92.200 (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time to clean up those articles... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Joshua, of course. Everyone (except for some Nepali and Indian people) will tell you to finally quit your incessant crypto-chauvinist whinging on the subject. The header "no mention of India" is misleading, since the article mentions "India" several times, including in the intro — just not in the first sentence.
The first paragraph of this article is a bit of a trainwreck. It looks to have been manhandled by multiple well-intentioned editors.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It can be read as saying that Buddhism was founded on the teachings of a subcontinent. I can't think of a quick fix, but if nobody gets there in the meantime I'll try take a stab at it tomorrow. Rivertorch (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded it as two sentences. Here's the current version. Hopefully, this will be clearer:

Gautama Buddha, also known as Siddhārtha Gautama[note 1], Shakyamuni,[note 2], or simply the Buddha, was a sage[1] on whose teachings Buddhism was founded.[2] A native of the ancient Shakya republic in the Himalayan foothills,[3][note 3] Gautama Buddha taught primarily in northeastern India.

—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Rivertorch (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding to the note 8. Buddha was born in Lumbini which is currently in Nepal and the proof for these are UNESCO lumbini, Nepal tourism board, wikipedia nepal http://ne.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%97%E0%A5%8C%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%AE_%E0%A4%AC%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A7 we all knows gautam buddha get knowledge in bodgaya which is in India but he is born in Lumbini NepalManish dangol (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source search for the scholars that doubt the historical Buddha

New World Encyclopedia claims there are scholars that doubt his existence and it seems they took their text from Stephen J. Laumaki's 2008 Cambridge Press book An Introduction to Buddhist Philosophy [1].

After extensive searching I finally found a couple of European historians that believed Gautama was likely a legend and not historical. They are mentioned in Buddhism in the Netherlands which contains two sources of Johan Hendrik Caspar Kern and the other is Émile Senart which does not exist on English WP but has an article on French Wikipedia, [2]. He states that while he can not prove the negative that Gautama Buddha never existed yet he finds the mythology suspicious:

“A sect has a founder, Buddhism like every other. I do not pretend to demonstrate that Sakyamuni never existed. The question is perfectly distinct from the object of this treatise, It follows, certainly, from the foregoing researches that hitherto the sacred personage has been given too much historical consistence, that the tissue of fables grouped around his name has been too facilely transformed, by arbitrary piecings, into a species of more or less unplausible history. Skepticism acquires from our analyses, in some regards, a greater precision: still, it does not follow that we should indefinitely extend its limits. In this epic and dogmatic biography, indeed, there remain very few elements which sustain a close examination; but to say this is not to say that among them there has not entered some authentic reminiscence. The distinction is certainly very difficult. Where we are not in a position to show for a tradition its exact counterpart in other cycles, a decision is an extremely delicate process. All that is suspicious ought not necessarily to be eliminated: it is right that whatever is rigorously admissible ought to be retained. There is no alleged deity—not Vishnu, or Krishna, or Heracles—for whom we might not construct a sufficiently reasonable biography by proceeding as has hitherto been done in regard to the legend of Buddha.”

- the English translation from John Robertson's 1911 book Pagan Christs:Studies in Comparative Hierology [3]

John Robertson found these sources of Kern and Senart convincing enough to entitle the chapter The Buddha Myth and is also skeptical of the existence of the historical Buddha. So here we have three scholars casting doubt on the existence of Gautama. 97.85.168.22 (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add Friedrich Max Müller's reprint of Senert's Essay on the legend of the Buddha - Paris, 1875 (partial because of Google books results) [4] "If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him!" - Zen proverb. 97.85.168.22 (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the latest episode of Secrets of the Dead, what appears to be a reliquy with the historical Buddha's ashes has been authenticated as from the time of the Emperor Asoka This leads one to think he was indeed historical.Ericl (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient India

for all the indian who think ancient india is in real india, you are wrong. all uthe south asia comes under ancient india at the time of buddha birth.. india was not india then. neither was nepal. they were divided into small countries. now taking about buddha, he is born south asia, now what we as say it.. for explain it to other. i would like to give example of red indian are not actually indian.. if india comes in a word then it doesnt means the current india... ancient india was the name given by people far away who didnt knew about the south asia.. its like people saying europe.. who didnt knew european countries.

my discussion is not about buddha was nepali. coz nepal was not born then. and if u think india was born then its a mistake. but there is proof that buddha was born in lumbini, which currently is in nepal. and it is not right to duplicate it, so that indians can give false information to the world and also to their own people.

this disscussion must soon come to conclusion so that the next generation dont have to discuss about it. especially for nepalese coz indian are creating false proof like making lumbini like in their country.

buddha is born in lumbini, currently in nepal. not definitely somewhere else.. as wiki say.. and would like wiki team to modify it.anyt written "can be anywhere".which is very outrageous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.34.4.243 (talk) 06:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relics of the Buddha

I am certainly not enough of a scholar to do this, but it seems that recently a good deal of evidence was presented that the portion of the Buddha given to his family was discovered a century ago, and although the Indian government does not say much about this, the remains were given by the British to King Chulalongkorn (Rama V) of Siam and placed at Wat Saket. Neither this page nor either of those pages say much about this; if there is even a possibility this is true, shouldn't that be of greatest interest to Buddhists? Joel J. Rane (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

India was build by British before there was no India what we see today. It was very very small countries. So, why North India has to be write in the broth place of Buddha, what has to do with India?? Buddha is born in Nepal. Why this side is not corrected this has to be change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.131.198.196 (talk) 06:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Purported birthplace of Gautama Buddha...

Regarding this edit, given that reliable sources don't have a consensus on Siddhārtha Gautama's birthplace, the image should not present an academic opinion as fact when there are differing opinions and no conclusive evidence that it's a fact. There might be a better word to use than purported, but changing the meaning of the sentence when the article doesn't reflect that sentence doesn't help the article. I also don't understand why "a holy shrine also for Hindus, who believe Buddha is the 9th of 10 Dashavataras of Vishnu" was reworded to say that "Buddha is the 9th of 10 Dashavataras of Vishnu." Hindus do believe this, it's not inaccurate to clarify who does so, and it doesn't appear to be a viewpoint held outside of that group of people, so I don't think it's helpful to make the image less concise. - SudoGhost 03:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Info-box on Hinduism

Hindus also revere the Buddha and several Hindus fast on the day of birth of Buddha - called Buddha Purnima in India. Also, many Vaishnavas consider Buddha as an avatar of Lord Vishnu. Please include this information in the lead to avoid Buddhist POV and add the Hinduism info-box to this article. Apalaria (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 7 September 2013

when some people say he was born in India and some say he was born in Nepal. However, both answers are actually right (although in different ways), and the reason is as follows:


There was no country called "India" and there was country called "Nepal" at the time when the Buddha was born.

The Buddha was born in a small kingdom called Kapilavastu, where his father was the king, which was situated on both sides of today's Indian-Nepalese border. His actual birthplace, Lumbini, is today in Nepal. Many people, thus, say he was born in Nepal, even if that wasn't the name of the country at the time.

Many people, on the other hand, say he was born in India, because Kapilavastu was one of many small independent kingdoms and republics together making up the Indian subcontinent. The people of Kapilavastu were part of the Indian cultural sphere, since they were talking Indian languages (Magadhi for everyday use and Vedic Sanskrit for religious use), since they were dominated by Vedic beliefs (the forerunner to modern Hinduism), and so on.

Some people, though, say he was born in India from a completely different reason. They claim that his birthplace Lumbini was actually in today's India, not in today's Nepal, or more exactly near Piprahwa in Uttar Pradesh, just at the Nepalese border and merely 16 km from the "Nepalese Lumbini". This is clearly a minority view.

There are also some other theories about his birthplace, but most scholars agree on the Nepalese theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapilavastu

86.99.208.122 (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Please provide WP:Reliable Sources for the above changes to be made. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 15:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lumbini

The lede and infobox should not omit information, nor present information as an undisputed truth when sources do not. The first sentence of the lede needs to be neutral and concise. Lumbini is considered by many to be Siddhārtha Gautama's birthplace, and the article reflects this. There is no cause to remove reliably sourced mentions of other places. - Aoidh (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The real birthplace of Buddha is Nepal not India

The real birthplace of Buddha is Nepal not India — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.34.107.201 (talk) 03:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 11 September 2013

Buddha was born in Lumbini Nepal or not elsewhere. Thus I request to remove the line or elsewhere. Sudeepsapkota24 (talk) 09:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Reliable sources show other possible locations; the link to Birthplace of Gautama Buddha should not be removed simply because it reflects this. - Aoidh (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gautam Buddha Was Born IN Nepal Not in India

I read article on wikipedia biddha was born in indian parts but its totally wrong. Nepal is the different country its not a parts of India . So everybody know about this buddha was born IN Nepal's District Kapilbastu its called Lumbini. Thats all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.41.237.47 (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu royal family

To use the term "Hindu" for this age, 500 BCE, is anachronistic. "Hinduism", a term itself highly problematic, did not exist at that time. The Vedic religion existed, and a wide variety of local religions and traditions, such as early Buddhism. But to use the term "Hindu" means imposing a unity which did not exist at that time (and which still does not exist).
Sharma seems unreliable to me; he seems to be a token of Neo-vedanta, a popular but misinformed modern interpretation of India's religions traditions. It reduces those traditions to a Brahmanical understanding of those traditions. To state that "has (sic) concept of "Rebirth" has also its roots in Hinduism" is simply incorrect. The concept of rebirth did not exist in the Vedic religion, one of the predecessors of Hinduism; it was introduced by the shramanic traditions. "Hinduism" emerged from the encounter between the Vedic religion and those other Indian religions and traditions, including Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the view of a moderator.

  • Okay. I will try to be diplomatic here. The talk is focused on Gautam Buddha or Siddhartha Gautam. He was a prince and later became a enlightened sage and many consider him as 9th avatar of Hindu god Vishnu.As a matter of fact there was no India at that time. There was Nepal which was a huge state of Kathmandu valley and surrounding areas.
  • Most of the world consider Kapilvastu, Lumbini, Nepal as birthplace of Gautam Buddha. There are ruins of palace and a pillar made by Emperor Ashoka on his pilgrimage which exactly specifies that -'this point here is the birthplace of Gautam Buddha.' The pillar and palace are said to be built after 250 years of death of Buddha. There is also the pond where Mayadvi, mother of Buddha, took bath at the time of labor.
  • Then there is talk of India. India didn't claimed the birthplace of Buddha as his before about 20 years ago. It has been known to every Nepali that his country was the birthplace of Buddha from more that 5 centuries. It is easy to take India as birthplace of Gautam Buddha as many ancient text refer to areas near the Himalayas as India or specifically- Bharat. It has been mentioned in most of the text that 9th avatar of Vishnu was born in north-east of India. As India claims itself as the birthplace of other most of the Vishnu avatars, it is common for it to claim it as birthplace of Buddha. It is a undisputed fact that Buddha got ernlightment in India and even died there but at the term of birthplace, India's place appears weak.
  • Nepal was always a independent country. British, Tibetan, Chinese and other conqurerers always failed to conquer it. It was the place of commerce between Indian states and Tibet. It contains more ideas of native Buddhism. There is no mention of zen, or any supernatural stories in the story of Buddha here. Most of the people of Nepal consider Buddha as a normal human being who was able to refuse to human desires and acheived godhood. Though not literally, every Nepali condiders Buddha as a part of his/her religion.
  • Even the UNESCO considers Nepal as the birthplace of Buddha. India is known to be claiming Gautam Buddha as its own after the starting of civil war in Nepal about 20 years ago which increased the power of India over Nepal. It is also to be observed that India is constructing a clone of Lumbini ruins just about 35 km far from Nepalese border.

---Shishir Giri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shishirgiri (talk • contribs) 08:47, 12 September 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia Shishirgiri. You said that "Most of the world consider Kapilvastu, Lumbini, Nepal as birthplace of Gautam Buddha" and this is more or less true, and this is why the infobox specifically says "Lumbini (present-day in Nepal) or possibly elsewhere" as opposed to just outright saying that there are different possible locations. However, that doesn't warrant removing the fact that there are other locations presented in reliable sources. - Aoidh (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are constant problems with this page, most of it due to Nepalese nationalism. It's completely beyond ridiculous that this subject is so often a source of trouble for editors here. The only major point that matters is that Wikipedia should rely on scholarship, not popular beliefs. There needs to be rigor in the editing process, especially for subjects like this. Tengu800 10:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not only Nepalese nationalism; it's also Indian nationalism and Indian regionalism. I've been editing the past few months on India & Hinduism-related articles; at some point I was engaged in four fierce disputes in which scholarly sources were mostly ignored. It caused me to take a Wiki-break and regain some pleasure in Wiki-editing. Some examples:
As CuCl2 wrote:
"India WAS a spiritual country, where different cultures co-existed and confluenced across South Asia. But that was long before colonization, that threw up new nations on ethnic and religious basis. From that point onwards, things have never been the same, there are suppressed nations every nook and corner, the Balochs in Pakistan, the Kashmiris and the North-Eastern tribes in India, the Hindus of Bangladesh and of course the Tamils of Sri Lanka(something we have dealt with mutually)."
I'm afraid that for western Wikipedians the Indian subcontinent is almost too complex too understand. It's an unfortunate irony that it is exactly our western culture which has contributed so thoroughly to those divisions... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot agree with you JJ, on two fronts. First of all you fall directly into a very inadequate 'east-west' dichotomy which always has been a reductive generalisation of not much substance. Secondly, notwithstanding the entire recent trope regarding concepts of the nation-state, the Indian subcontinent was already repeatedly drenched in blood by the time the europeans moved in. Nepal was not a country as we now talk about countries - and neither was India. Moreover, the ideas of national borders wasn't present at this time. Likewise, I don't think for a minute that Prince Gautama considered himself either Nepalese or Indian - he was brought up in an independent republican state. Moreover, the regions of the areas were often subsumed into much larger empires, such as the [Nanda empire]. As I have stated before, in terms of the landmass, no-one disputes that Gautama was born in the South Asia aka the Indian subcontinent - what was at the time (in my opinion) considered to be Jambudvipa. (20040302 (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks for the reply! Your remark on "a very inadequate 'east-west' dichotomy" is a good reminder; thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request under article section "Nine virtues"

There is a highly noticeable typo on at the beginning of the section "Nine virtues", which simply consists of a single line which only has one period. This line should be removed when possible, since it makes the article look rather messy. Darkk100 (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has another long section on the Buddha, with info. that could be included here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_Buddhism#The_Buddha

Reality about the birthplace of Buddha

There have been conflicting views on the actual birthplace of Lord Buddha. However, history speaks itself. There is no necessity to fuss about Gautama Buddha's birthplace as the UNESCO lists Lumbini(located in Nepal) as the world heritage site because of the fulfillment of following criterias:-

Criterion (iii): As the birthplace of the Lord Buddha, testified by the inscription on the Asoka pillar, the sacred area in Lumbini is one of the most holy and significant places for one of the world’s great religions

Criterion (vi): The archaeological remains of the Buddhist viharas (monasteries) and stupas (memorial shrines) from the 3rd century BC to the 15th century AD, provide important evidence about the nature of Buddhist pilgrimage centres from a very early period.

Lumbini is situated at the foothills of the Himalayas in modern Nepal. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/666

The article already reflects the UNESCO listing. - Aoidh (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

vesaka misspelled as vesak

can someone change?


Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

  1. ^ a b Baroni 2002, p. 230.
  2. ^ Boeree, George. "An Introduction to Buddhism". Shippensburg University. Retrieved 2011-09-10.
  3. ^ warder 2000, p. 45.
  4. ^ Warder 2000, p. 45.
  5. ^ Walsh 1995, p. 20.
  6. ^ Mahāpātra 1977.
  7. ^ Tripathy & year unknown.
  8. ^ Nakamura 1980, p. 18.


Cite error: There are <ref group=group=> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=group=}} template (see the help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group=web> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=web}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Buddha&oldid=574494205"