Jump to content

Talk:The Buddha

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AnM2002 (talk | contribs) at 09:11, 13 April 2022 (→‎Requested move 6 April 2022: Comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Controversial Location

Why does it states that he lived in India while this topic is highly controversial right now. It's causing a lot of conflict around social media. Madhavpoudel123 (talk) 06:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading Information

  1. . His Name is Siddhartha Gautham not Gautama.
  2. . He was born in Nepal not in India.
  3. . Lumbini comes under the territory of Nepal.

202.51.89.222 (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There may be an issue with Romanization of the name. As for where he was born, the article notes it's now Nepal, but the article refers to it as it was known at the time of the event. —C.Fred (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About ancient india

What ancient india? Where as per history there was no country known as India but a bunch of small Hindu countries. The oldest country of south Asia is Nepal and Buddha lived in Nepal . He Was born in Nepal. If its about ancient Nepal then talk about Greater Nepal in which the place where he died also belongs. Razat Rai (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The original birth place of buddha was in lumbini situated in Nepal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.95.18.149 (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Social

Why is Gautam Buddha declared a national hero 182.93.78.170 (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2022

Gautama buddha was born In Nepal(Lumbini) 103.95.18.149 (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done According to the Buddhist tradition, Gautama was born in Lumbini, now in modern-day Nepal, and raised in Kapilavastu, which may have been either in what is present-day Tilaurakot, Nepal or Piprahwa, India ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of death in infobox

Are we really giving credence to a single, speculative medical article written two millenia later based on anecdotal data? Surely better to just leave this blank. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gautama Buddha in other religions

Some of the entries in this setion are barely a sentence long and deserve to be elaborated. (Taoism, Christianity, Manichaeism, Baha'i Faith, etc.)

e.g. it should be explained why the Buddha is regarded as one of the Manifestations of God, not only the fact that he is. Also does a religion regard other beings as manifestations of god and how are the respective religions influenced by this.

Either elaborate on the stubs, or delete them. They do not add any meaningful knowledge.

Hskoppek (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2022

103.225.244.93 (talk) 10:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha born in Nepal

 Already done See above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a Birth religion

Suddhodana held a naming ceremony on the fifth day and invited eight Brahmin scholars to read the future. All gave similar predictions.[133] Kondañña, the youngest, and later to be the first arhat other than the Buddha, was reputed to be the only one who unequivocally predicted that Siddhartha would become a Buddha.[135]

Early texts suggest that Gautama was not familiar with the dominant religious teachings of his time until he left on his religious quest, which is said to have been motivated by existential concern for the human condition. Apart from the Vedic Brahmins, the Buddha's lifetime coincided with the flourishing of influential Śramaṇa schools of thought like Ājīvika, Cārvāka, Jainism, and Ajñana.

So please add the birth religion as unknown or Śramaṇa or non-Vedic. Or please keep the religion section blank in the info box.

But according to Jacob Kinnard's book he's a Sanātani/Hindu.[1]

References

  1. ^ Kinnard, Jacob N. (1 October 2010). The Emergence of Buddhism: Classical Traditions in Contemporary Perspective. Fortress Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-8006-9748-8.
  • I suggest we just remove the religion line altogether. It is already absent on pages such as Jesus and Muhammad due to the contentious nature of such labels given that major religious figures can both shift their doctrines during their lifetimes and be retroactively claimed by all manner of different religious groups. It is enough and most accurate to say that the Buddha is "Known for: Founding Buddhism". Iskandar323 (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323: exactly. I have the same thoughts. We should keep the religion section blank cause there's no proof that Gautama Buddha said by himself that his teachings will become a religion or he intended to make a religion. Usoejw9 (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Buddha created whole institutions based on novel teachings, including orders of monks/nuns, so I disagree with your point about intentionality. But my point stands. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha did create Buddhism. But Buddhism didn't come to existence as a religion before or when Buddha was alive. So if there's any proof that Gautama Buddha said by himself that his teachings will become a religion then provide me. Or it's better to leave the religion section blank. Usoejw9 (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent addition in religion i.e. vedic and non vedic is faulty because paper doesn't mention Buddha's religion, rather the author said that Sakya clan was mixed of Vedic and Non vedic, and you interpreted it as Buddha being mixed of Vedic and Non vedic religion. You should get some WP:RS which states explicitly that he was born in this religion or something, otherwise don't engage in WP:EDITWAR and discuss the matter here beforehand, regarding removal of religion column altogether, I partly agree seeing the page of Jesus and Muhammad, you can discuss that here and get the consensus, as the topic is fairly popular, I will suggest to tag it for WP:RfC as well, so other opinions can be obtained. Sajaypal007 (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My recent addition isn't faulty. Buddha before enlightenment was in a Vedic & non-Vedic mixed religion. You can also see Jacob Kinnard's chapter 1, page 1 where he proved that Buddha was a Hindu by birth & Buddhism emerged from Hinduism. Usoejw9 (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just throwing it out there that no baby is any religion at birth. These are labels applied by society. Babies are normally busy working on things like hand-to-eye co-ordination. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then should I create another topic blanking the religion section from info box? You're talking like society didn't make Buddhism a religion. Now-a-days if a teacher teaches some student, will they create a religion out of their study? Again Buddhism wasn't a religion when Buddha was alive. Usoejw9 (talk) 05:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Religion infobox line on Buddha

Should the infobox line for religion be omitted from this page, as with other major religious figures (two useful parallels being the pages for Jesus and Muhammad), given the inherent ambiguities in defining the religion of a 'founding' individual? (Not least since their upbringing will always have taken place in the context of a different corpus of belief and practice to that which they ultimately adopted.) (Yes/no) Iskandar323 (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes: This came to my attention because while this line has historically been present on the Buddha page, questions have recently arisen over whether the Buddha was himself Buddhist per se and whether he may be considered to have been part of a different religion before becoming the Buddha. I suspect it was this type of ambiguity that led the religion line to be left vacant on similar pages, such as those for Jesus and Muhammad. Since major religious figures tend to engender sweeping shifts in belief, faith and practice during their lifetimes, taking a body of religious practice from point A to point B, there is merit in avoiding crudely defining their religion as X or Y. In the case of Buddha, I feel it is enough and most accurate to simply leave in the infobox line that the Buddha is "Known for: Founding Buddhism" while omitting the religion line. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DanFromAnotherPlace:if you have seen the history of Gautama Buddha's article then you'll see that User: Sajaypal007, पाटलिपुत्र & Bumbubookworm had opposed this decision. Even according to Jacob Kinnard's book which is given as a reliable source of the religion of Buddha, Buddha was a Hindu by birth. And according to Levman's journal it's indirectly written that Buddha was born into a family which followed Vedic & non-Vedic rituals. But I'll still stick with Iskandar323's decision. Usoejw9 (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I thought the previous debate was about what to put in the infobox, not about whether to remove the parameter completely. I think removal is best if its inclusion is proving controversial. Dan from A.P. (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose seeing the policy on inclusion of religion in infobox, I think it all depends upon consensus on case to case basis. My argument is religion being a big factor of a person who literally lived for it, this should not be removed from this page. Only Buddhism can be kept while other thing like in which religion he was born, whether we call it hinduism, brahmanism or vedic religion, it should be included in the main body and not infobox as infobox should contain very short information. Sajaypal007 (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sajaypal007: I would argue that there is a quite a significant semantic difference between being known for being a Buddhist and being known for founding the religion. And again, I'm not even sure the Buddha can, logically, be Buddhist ("an adherent of the religion based on the teachings of Buddha"), because it seems that this would somehow involve him following himself, doesn't it? In any case, it is precisely due to the endless discussion potential of such questions that I have suggested removing the religion line from the infobox altogether. And the infobox will still say: "Known for: Founding Buddhism" - Iskandar323 (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that makes sense. Sajaypal007 (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes: as per requestor and other users' comments above. P1221 (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: although I don't have a problem with ommitting it. As the sutras say, the Buddha was a light unto himself. He literally followed himself. Although he may have previously been Zoroastrian or some Vedic sect, he consciously created a religion and he was that religion's first and most famous follower. The same cannot be said about Jesus, for example. Teishin (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Teishin there's no sutra which says that Buddha intended to create another religion. No religious leader intended to create another religion. They wanted to reform the religion in which they were born. Because the teachings of Buddha wasn't granted by many Vedic minded people, the students of Buddha started Buddhist council after Buddha's death. Buddha was indeed a Hindu according to Jacob Kinnard's book given as a reference with Buddhism in the info box. But according to Levman his religion was Vedic and non Vedic mixed before enlightment. Same goes for Rahula, Yashodhara, Mahapajapati Gotami & Devadatta.

Although if you have any proofs that buddhist texts claim that Gautama Buddha intended to create another religion then you can show me in my talk page. Bharatiya283BC (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was citing the Attadipa sutta. I did not claim that that sutra explicitly says that Buddha intended to create a religion.
I think your claim - "No religious leader intended to create another religion. They wanted to reform the religion in which they were born." would be pretty difficult to substantiate. That the Buddha was a Hindu, and that he aimed to reform Hinduism, seems to be a contentious claim, on both accounts. Teishin (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 April 2022

Gautama Buddha → Siddhartha Gautama – This article is a biography, and as such, it should be named after the proper name of its subject, without religious titles, like as for pages such as Muhammad (not "Prophet Muhammad"), Jesus (not "Jesus Christ") and Paul the Apostle (not "St. Paul"). The Buddha's name is Siddhartha Gautama, and this article is the biography of Siddhartha Gautama, the man. "The Buddha" is arguably also a name or a nickname for the man, but this has been rejected as a title in previous move requests over the alleged confusion this would create regarding Buddahood in general. (This seems like a spurious argument but it is what it is.)

"Gautama Buddha", however, is neither a proper name, nor a nickname. It is a hodgepodge of the Buddha's surname and the title "Buddha", making it a hypocritical article name with regards to Wikipedia policies and guidelines that have seen the terms prophet, christ and saint titles removed from other religious biographies. And this is the critical point, because whereas "Siddhartha Gautama" is a proper name with no apparent problems, "Gautama Buddha" is a sort of name-title hybrid that directly conflicts with the standard practice for religious biographies in other faiths, and I see no reason why the rules applied to the Abrahamic faiths should not be applied equally to Eastern religions.

In a pure toss-up between the names, there is little between "Siddhartha Gautama" and "Gautama Buddha" in Ngrams (- though again, incidentally, "The Buddha" leads). This is also after Wikipedia has been pushing out the name Gautama Buddha for two decades, so the results may also include Wikipedia-mirroring resources. I am unclear if any of the sources of the article use this name. It certainly appears in none of the notes or source titles. What little currency the name-title "Gautama Buddha" does seem to gain within certain circles seems to mainly be as a respectful title for the Buddha, particularly among Buddhists and deferential scholars of Far Eastern religion, just as Muslims or similarly deferential scholars might refer to "The Prophet Muhammad". It is not neutral, however, for Wikipedia to refer to a religious figure either with titles, in the preferred way of their followers, or with undue respect.

As with other religious figures, we should use the matter of fact proper name "Siddhartha Gautama" here too. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

? No, it's true, {{28 Buddhas}}, there are many Buddhas. Many editors don't seem to realize this. "In Buddhism, Buddha (/ˈbuːdə, ˈbʊdə/; Pali, Sanskrit: बुद्ध), "awakened one",[1] is a title for those who are awake, and have attained nirvana and Buddhahood through their own efforts and insight," Randy Kryn (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan what is your opinion? Venkat TL (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Buddha is still primary ... none of these 27 other figures were called 'buddhas' until the Buddha turned up and people started writing religious literature in Pali. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Buddha&oldid=1082464676"