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 85.217.20.33 (talk) at 06:36, 22 November 2011 (→‎Sakyamuni). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

`Gautam Buddha was a spiritual teacher who founded buddhism` just is ok please remove `Ancient India`. This term never represented the Eastern Civilization and is also misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke147 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Don`t you think it is misleading that again showing controvarsy in where he was born. Everybody is convienced that he was born in Lumbini but again you write he was born in Odissa? Will it keeps the quality of Wikipedia that in the same page you write he was born in Lumbini and you also say in Orissa? You gave the reference of Ashok`s incription but there is also Ashok`s Pillar in Lumbini saying `in this land Buddha was born`. Unesco has enlisted Lumbini as a World heritage site as a birth place of Buddha. Again go to the reference number one in your page it clearly says he was born in Lumbini. Can you give me the source which says he was born in Odissa at Bhuwanshwori?133.71.121.214 (talk) 09:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke147 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha gained enlightenment in India. He first taught in India. He died in India. And he was born right by India, in what is now known as Nepal. The logical answer should be that he is from Ancient India, in what is now known as Nepal. Its not that complicated then 71.106.83.19 (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the starting line completely makes a controversial statement, therefore i suggest that the sentence should be limited to ...was born in Lumbhini. I hope the correction will be made as soon as possible, as its better to have limited information than to have misleading information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.244.99.45 (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This whole India vs. Nepal discussion is getting a bit silly (IMHO) -- the modern boundaries of India and Nepal are the result of (British) colonialism, and the fact that the low-lying areas ("Terai"), including the Lumbini area happen to be part of Nepal now, was just a reward by the Brits for Nepal's help during the 1857 Indian uprising (look it up, e.g. on Wikipedia ;-) ), rather than a reflection that that area is culturally particularly Nepalese. The Terai is culturally much more akin to the neighboring areas in today's India than, say, the Kathmandu Valley or Mustang. How about "Ancient Hindustan" if "Ancient India" is objectionable to modern (nationalist) Nepalese, and "Modern Nepal" is objectionable to modern (nationalist) Indians. (Tessarman) 12:45, 24 August 2011 (MST)

I have edited the sentence to present day Nepal. This seems to be agreeable by all parties. if not please give your reasons. --DBhuwanSurfer 21:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBSSURFER (talk • contribs)

I would suggest you read over the talk page archives. The only thing wrong with the current wording is that it doesn't recognize Nepal, a country that didn't exist when Buddha was alive, as name of the birthplace. Ancient India is about as accurate and descriptive as you can get. To say that he was "from modern day Nepal" is also untrue, as he was born in a region that is now part of Nepal, but did not spend his life there. Nationalism is a conflict of interest, and changing the lede to promote Nepal does not improve the article. - SudoGhost 22:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what gives anyone the right then to say he was from ancient India. Based on your own argument, Nepal didnt exist when he was alive, but what makes you think ancient india existed when he was alive? ancient india is not a country, neither it is suitable to use it here nor there is any proof that India was unified at that time. And yes, he did spend his life in Nepal. Check your history books. I did not expect such weak arguments from a veteran editor! changing back to ancient india does not improve the article any way. How about you give the exact birth place "Lumbini" instead of this ancient India modern nepal issue? show some courage please. --DBhuwanSurfer 17:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBSSURFER (talk • contribs)

Ancient India does not refer to India the country, but to the Indian subcontinent. I find it hard to believe that he spent his life in a country that did not exist, especially when most of his life was spent outside of the area that is now part of Nepal. Changing the article to support a Nepali POV does not improve the article, but is a violation of WP:NPOV. - SudoGhost 20:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sudo reverting edits from personal point of view does not help. And yes, Buddha spent his life in nepal mostly not in India. Please check history. It does not suit a veteran editor to put his point of view in an article. and also stop telling everyone talking here as nepalese POV. This is wrong! DBhuwanSurfer 22:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBSSURFER (talk • contribs) [reply]

If I'm editing from a conflict of interest, you are more than welcome to provide the diffs to back up such a claim. Otherwise, commenting on my editing behavior instead of the content at hand is a personal attack, and has no bearing on editing this article. The lede already states that he was born in what is now Nepal, so I'm not seeing the issue with stating that he was from Ancient India. It is as factually accurate as possible while still adhering to an NPOV. Ancient India is not India, nor is it Nepal. Both of these are irrelevant, as neither country existed during that time period. Telling me to "check history" repeatedly is not an argument for changing the article. As for the comment about the Nepali POV, your editing history shows an apparent COI in this matter. - SudoGhost 22:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article used to read "Indian subcontinent", which seemed to me as accurate as one can get and long cleared most of these disagreements. The term "Ancient India" seems slightly more ambiguous to me, and more prone to being interpreted as bias. This is demonstrated in part by your having to pipelink to Iron Age India, and by the fact that the actual Ancient India target outlines 20-30 articles, some historical, some geographical, some cultural, and many that have little or nothing to do with our topic here. Do you have a clear argument against referring geographically to the Indian subcontinent? /ninly(talk) 05:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with it saying "Indian subcontinent", that actually seems to be a better choice of words, and now I feel amiss for not thinking of that myself. - SudoGhost 05:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I agree with the Indian subcontinent word too. Saying Ancient India would have been totally wrong though. It is because of this very fact: This word 'ancient' if used for a city/ country should mean that that nation or city existed. For instance, ancient rome existed and it was a state, but not ancient india!DBhuwanSurfer 16:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBSSURFER (talk • contribs)

Ancient India referred to Iron Age India, which clearly says "Iron Age India, the Iron Age in the Indian subcontinent..." the Indian subcontinent obviously existed. However, that wording is not there anymore, so this is a moot point. - SudoGhost 17:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The word India existed after 1947. You cannot just make up things. If you claim there was no Nepal when Buddha was born, then by default you are saying India was created in 1947. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2011
Far from it. You have something to verify this claim? Otherwise, it is you who are "just making up things". The word India has been in use in the English language since at least the 9th century, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, and was first used by Herodotus c. 440 BCE. That Nepal did not exist during that time period does not assert that India did not exist when historians through history show otherwise. The entire region was referred to by historians as India. This is not referring to the Republic of India, nor is it referring to Nepal, neither of which existed until long after Buddha's death. - SudoGhost 12:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about you verify your claims? UNESCO verifications are the ultimate facts and you cannot deny it. The english used it does not mean anything. IT has not been used by anyone else. Your claims are totally false. Indus vally- thats what india came from. You are making up everything. But I can see your attachment into india very well.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can show that I am "attached to India" and editing with a WP:COI, stop making accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. As for verification, gladly. First is India Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition: 1989. Another would be this, which shows that the word "India" was used by the Greeks to describe that region. Therefore your argument that the word India did not come into existence until after 1947 is proven to be inaccurate. Please provide a reference to this UNESCO verification. - SudoGhost 16:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh now, India an english word was used by greeks? Who are you fooling around? Your edits clearly show you attachment to india. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, India is a Latin word used in Greek and English. English has a tendency to use words from other languages. Please stop accusing editors that say things you disagree with of an "attachment to india" without some sort of proof. - SudoGhost 16:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you not learn some sanskrit before you come to discussions like this? India comes from the Sanskrit word 'Indu' which came from the 'river 'Sindhu' clearly known to all Hindus in India and Nepal. Latin? You make me laugh! Sanskrit came way before these new languages and there is total agreement if you ask anyone that India came from Sanskrit and the english just used their language for their own sake. You may win this edit reverts Mr. Veteran editor but truth will always remain truth. It is a pity that we have totally ignorant editors in wikipedia and we are giving false information to the world. But again, in your case I understand. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm wrong, I'd be more than happy to admit it. However, this would require verification on your part. The word is India not Indu. I do not deny that India comes from the word Indu, but the word India was used in Latin, and then Greece, to describe the region over two-thousand years ago. Not since 1947. - SudoGhost 16:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are a veteran who puts false information and does not know the truth . and this proves it : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India - clearly says its sanskrit.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fine. prefixed modern to India ([1]). Now do not vandalize under this pretext. Snowcream (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Goldietatar, 11 August 2011

Hello, under the section "Depiction in arts and media" I would like to add Hermann Hess novel Siddhartha. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhartha_%28novel%29 Goldietatar (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable, as long as you point out that in that novel, the historic Buddha is not Siddhartha, but Gotama... Tessarman 08:21, 11 August 2011 (MST)

 added Thank you--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's meI am dynamite 12:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Me.awash, 25 August 2011

Buddha was born purely in Nepal, in a Holy Place called Lumbini, not in India. I wonder why Wikipedia is relying on the false promotion and not on the fact that has been a historic approval since centuries. I request Wikipedia to correct this and lock the page so that no one can edit this way and prevent our historic property from being misused.

Thanks

Me.awash (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The physical location is now in Nepal. When the Buddha was alive, it was India. This is explained in the article, and is discussed all throughout this talk page, see both for more information. Thank you. - SudoGhost 06:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for an FAQ

Just a thought, maybe in order to circumvent all these problems with the "India vs. Nepal" debate, maybe an FAQ at the top of the talk page would be prudent. --TheHande (talk) 08:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Roshish001, 25 August 2011

i am a student from Nepal.and i have always been both told and taught that lord Buddha was born in our country Nepal.as i follow Buddhism it feels bad when someone or something says Buddha was not born in our country or he was born in India.lord Buddha was born in Nepal,so he is a teacher from Nepal,not from ancient India.it really hurts our people's feelings.so on behalf of all the Nepalese people, i request you to do research and the information from "spiritual teacher from ancient India" to "spiritual teacher from Nepal."thank you...

Roshish001 (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on all the discussions on this talk page the change will not be made unless a consensus is made, basically at the time it was India not Nepal even though it is in current day Nepal. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 09:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who said it was India? Can you give any unbiased reference? Was there India at that time? This page is leading toward false information. Better to remove this page form Wikipedia rather than giving false information, like Ancient India, Indian Subcontenients. Why dont we use Vedic Civilization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke147 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy about the country

There seems to be a lot of heat about whether Buddha's birthplace should be mentioned as Nepal or India. I guess you there is a certain amount of pride involved in this. So, instead of flatly saying no, you can say:

"he was born in Ancient India (the area which is now in Nepal)" OR "he was born in modern day Nepal (a part of Ancient India)"

Why take these absolutist positions?????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.62.93.179 (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha didn't actually start Buddhism

The first line reads "Siddhārtha Gautama was a spiritual teacher from ancient India who founded Buddhism."

This is somewhat incorrect. Buddha did not want to start any 'isms' nor did he want himself to be made a deity. A more accurate description would be...

"Siddhārtha Gautama was a spiritual teacher from ancient India on whose teachings Buddhism was founded."

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.62.93.179 (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No bad actually! (apart double posing missing signature ;0) ) - I agree. What do the other think?--Dia^ (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[Double posting removed]. I agree with this proposed change in wording and will boldly make the change. Sunray (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You fools...say.."Siddhartha Gautama was a spiritual teacher from Nepal. He was born in Nepal " n u so called wikis ur line "...Other archeological findings postulate that Buddha was born at Kapilavastu at Piprahwa, Uttar Pradesh, India or Kapileswara, Odisha,India." is now surely gonna rage n concerns....u don't have any idea wat a blunder you r doing....He was born in Kapilvastu, Lumbini, Nepal....dats it...its prove...now correct yourself... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sznga (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why "Modern" Nepal??? Why not just Nepal??

Nepal is a country having more than 30000 years unrecorded history. Where as India hasn't got even 100 years of history as we all know before 1947 India doesn't exist in this world. But contrary to this this so called "Article" of Wikipedia about Buddha has got India, India every where from picture by picture to lines by lines. It is so ridiculous that only Indian editors are allowed in this so called "Article". And it's a shame to Wikipedia being favourable to the false. Yes India is a bigger country,stronger and has got more influence in the world than Nepal. But that doesn't give them the authority to twist and turn the fact and create unnecessary dispute. A country where Hindu and Islamic events dominates everything else it doesn't even sound appropriate to dying hard to connect Buddha with India. I request to my fellow Indian friends,if you want to be respected by other, you should respect other too. More importantly you should respect the truth which is Nepal is the homeland of Buddha. It's so ridiculous to claim that a person who born more than 300000 years ago in a country which didn't even exist 100 years ago !! And it's sounds so inappropriate to mention a country which has thousands years of history as now in Nepal..,today in Nepal..etc, just because it's not big enough or hasn't got enough influence. This article should be rewritten and Nepal should be mention without any suffix or prefix as it's a complete word itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddhistwiki (talk • contribs) 02:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OMG!!!! I laughed so hard i fell out of my chair. Did you escape from some nut house? Get a proper education, 30000 years ago there existed no countries. Rest of your hissy fit exposes your lack of respect towards other people and culture. On the whole to your try emotionally blackmailing people to agree to your 'facts' for which no proof exists. I suggest you stick to 4chan type sites and dont insert your 'facts' onto serious sites like wikipedia.--59.92.252.3 (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm truly impressed that Nepal was a nation roughly 26,800 years before one of the first civilizations, and that Siddhārtha Gautama was born more than 250,000 years before modern humans. Call me a skeptic, but I think your numbers might not be quite right. - SudoGhost 15:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@SudoGhost: Buddha was born when society was formed under similar ideas as today's society persists to exist. Components of modern civilization like home,marriage,family,rule of law,state governance etc were well existed when he was born. Buddha himself was a prince(son of a king)before he became Buddha. So please don't comment so naively without knowing what your are commenting about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.43.155 (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know very well what I'm "commenting about". Siddhārtha Gautama was not born over three hundred thousand years ago, there is no naiveté in that. Unless you mean to suggest otherwise, I think you misunderstood my comment. - SudoGhost 12:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SudoGhost is right. The Buddha is universally recognized as having been born 2,400 to 3,000 years ago, most likely in the more recent part of that range.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hey guys do you really know what you are saying and what people are saying. it's not about the numbers, you can put more or less number. The birth date of Buddha is believed to be at least some 3 thousands years ago. But this guy said, before modern human ! are you serious man. What do you mean by that, Buddha was born during stone age or something. Man,don't kill people by such jokes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.37.40 (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither India nor Nepal existed at the time, so this is a non-issue. The Buddha lived in Kapilavastu. Nepal is the current nation-state that claims that territory, but it wasn't the country Buddha lived in. And it might not have been the Stone Age, but it was the Mahajanapadas-era of Iron Age India, and not the modern world by a long shot. We're still struggling and arguing over what society was like in that time; see the scholarly arguments over the origin of the Shramana Traditions ("indigenous Indus, reformist Vedic, independent Indo-Aryan tradition") alone. Ogress smash! 15:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ogress - This whole debate is false. For example, the Wikipedia entry on Michelangelo says he is an "Italian Renaissance painter", even though there was no "Italy" until 1861. I am beginning to see that this sort of identification problem only crops up with India. Even though there was no France until about 900AD, any references to people from before then as to "French". I sometimes wonder if this is part of a delegitimisation campaign against India having "ownership" of its own past by Pakistanis but now Europeans are in on the act too...Also, what do you mean neither India nor Nepal existed? I think it's fair to say modern India is the descendant of "Ancient India", not Pakistan or Bangladesh, as they have clearly chosen the "Islamic" path. -DukeofLancasterVI-DukeOfLancasterVI (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid, sir, that Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Nepal are all descendants of Ancient India. So is part of Afghanistan. And Michelangelo was part of the "Italian Renaissance" just like the above regions were part of "Ancient India". We don't get to pick and choose who gets to have history just because of later changes in faith, either. India is what outsiders called the great mass of nations and peoples in the area delimited by the Indian Subcontinent and surrounding regions.
As for their traditions, modern Hinduism owes most of its traditions to 10th century religious movements unconnected with Rg Vedic-era ritualism, society and culture. Besides which, the heart of Rg Vedic culture was in what is now Punjab, Pakistan and even parts of Afghanistan. And what of eastern regions, Magadha? Do we write off Buddhism and Jainism and the shramanic tradition that competed with Rg Vedicism as the inheritance of pre-Indian religion? You want to deny the border regions that were the heart of the two competing ancient religio-cultural movements.
In short, you can't base history on recent nationalism (and in this case, blatant Hindutva). Ogress smash! 16:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ogress, I don't know which country you're talking about, but here, in England, "India" means India and "Pakistan" means Pakistan, etc. I just don't think we should be forced to share the history of Indian religion with a country that has explicitly chosen Islam, a Middle Eastern religion, and moved closer and closer to the Arab countries. Pakistan has explicitly given up more and more of its Indian identity. Ultimately though, I suppose it's a losing battle. Ultimately, the root of the problem is the break-up of the Indian subcontinent. An outsider would normally imagine that these countries would work together, given the shared ancestry and history, sort of like the Anglo world (UK, US, Australia). Unfortunately, for many reasons (Muslims wanting their own countries, the British Empire, tribal allegiances), this region is in complete disunity and therefore can't really stand up to anyone (i.e. CHina). Anyway, I digress. I don't know why you brought up Hindutva. But I suspect your way probably is more logical, even if it makes me angry that India has to give up some of its history's ownership to undeserving countries like Pakistan.--DukeOfLancasterVI (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient India

I just want to say that even after so many objections on the word "ancient India" , its not edited yet. This is really misleading and should be edit as soon as possible. As there has been other events when it had been tried to prove that the birth place of Buddha is India, many people will take this as another such attempt. As about wikipedia, it is great source of knowledge and should know its improtance and weight. So before publishing any aritcle on any topic, it should check its credibility. Macdvr (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree !!! DBhuwanSurfer 22:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBSSURFER (talk • contribs)

Historical Buddha?

Siddhartha Gautam, Gautam Buddha was born in Lumbini in Nepal. Lumbini is in Nepal. Although, is an independent country. Country recognised as high mountain and brave in war is all recognition of Neplese.At the time of the Buddha's birth, the area was at or beyond the boundary of Vedic civilization,

Buddha was certainly Nepali-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? and it's not necessary to tell Sakyas evolved from Nepal. This is just some ludicrous fabrication to some how make Buddha Tibetan or Dalit Hero or even Indian hero.For so many children in India, they are still taught the wrong thing saying Buddha was born in India but the truth is the Ashoka pillar in the birth place of Siddhartha Gautam, Kapilbastu, Lumbini.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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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

Boddha that is Siddhartha Gautam Boudha wa born in Kapilbastu which is always the part of Nepal. There is many eevidential proof about this matter in Kapilbastu, Nepal.

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This has still not been dealt with. Historicity of Buddha or Historical Buddha still do not exist. The earliest biographies of Buddha are written over 500 years from his supposed death. Where is the archeological data and contemporary writings from historians that lived in 468 BCE about Buddha? Where is the proof, other than religious texts, that he ever existed? 71.86.157.30 (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So make one. I would assist with a Historical Buddha article, as it is sorely needed. This page is basically just relating a sanitized narrative that is mostly derived from the Theravada Nidanakatha, from approximately 1000 years after the Buddha! Not to mention that this text originated in Sri Lanka, and not in India, and much earlier biographies exist such as the Buddhacarita by Asvaghosa. I'm still interested in finding if there is any credible historical proof for even the existence of such a person as the Buddha. Not to mention that Sutta Nipata texts are often regarded as the earliest Buddhist texts, and portray a very different picture of Buddhism and the Buddha's teachings. Tengu800 22:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It appears that no use of any script to write an Indo-Aryan languages occurred before the reign of Emperor Ashoka in the 3rd century BCE" (From Brāhmī script. Therefore there are no contemporaneous texts available. The entire sub-contintent was deeply entrenched in oral transmission of texts and ideas, but that leaves no archaeological signature. Is the article merely to be an acknowledgement of the absence of data available for Gautama Buddha? I don't object to the idea of an article in principle, but what is to go into it? (20040302 (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I would imagine that it would address portrayals of the Buddha in the earliest known Buddhist literature. For example, parts of the Sutta Nipata are generally regarded as being older than most Agama materials. Also, some of the Jatakas are regarded (through metrical analysis) as being from as early as the 4th century BCE. There are also some sutras that are known to be among later Agama materials that should be addressed as such, including the Mahaparinibbana Sutta. The Agamas and Nikayas themselves have quite a bit of chronology that is known about them. Some materials are early while others are later. Generally those that give any real details about the Buddha himself are late texts. In my view of what a "Historical Buddha" article should be, the portrayal of the Buddha would be shown at each phase of the development of early Buddhism. Tengu800 11:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tengu, I hear you. I'm wondering if there has been much scholastic work done that provides us with sound WP:RS for discussing the relative ages of the source materials - secondly,the article would have to be ensconced in some form of disclaimer that makes it clear that the early record is based solely on epigraphic and literary analysis from Buddhist Studies academic journals. There have also been some Buddhist historians (I'm thinking of e.g. Taranatha) who attempted at some level or other to be objective. In a sense, then, I'm asking what sort of consensus would be required, and whether or not it would be your intention to restrict WP:RS to a list of 'historian' academics rather than 'religious' sources, and then that begs the question of what those criteria would look like, and how they would be maintained. (20040302 (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

FAQ

I made the suggestion a while back (which someone vandalised) and to which I never got a reply. Why not make an FAQ to get rid of all/most of the people bugging out about the Nepal vs. India thing? --TheHande (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Identity of Guatama buddha

Dear Wikipedia,

In your description of Guatama Buddha it states that in some Hindu Texts (the Srimad Bhagavatam) Guatama Buddha is referred to as 'Vishnu Avatar Buddha'.

However there is firm evidence to suggest that they are two different people, with Vishnu Avatar Buddha having appeared about a thousand years before Guatama Buddha.

For verification please Read 'Beyond Nirvana' by Sri Srimad Bhaktiprajnana Keshava Goswami.

a can be found here: hpdf ttp://www.purebhakti.com/resources/ebooks-a-magazines-mainmenu-63/cat_view/53-bhakti-books-download/31-english.html

Thank you for reading,

Yours,

Radheya Mansel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.220.8 (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Radheya Mansel, I assume that you are referring to pages 40-48 of the book. Although I totally agree that the author (Srila Bhakti Prajnan Kesava Gosvami Maharaja; excuse the lack of diacritics - the text is not authored in UTF-8) submits an argument that is coherent with your view, I do not consider that he depends upon 'firm evidence', or that his argument is irrefutable. Indeed, his viewpoint is clearly religious, and he is following a Chaitanya line of thought. I have no dispute with the Chaitanya tradition, but one must acknowledge that, for wikipedia, it's assertions are a truth rather than the truth. If there can be found strong evidence that this is a coherent view of the Chaitanya, or of the Vaishnava movement in general, maybe a sentence or two relating to that could be placed within this article. But right now it looks to mr like a minority view. (20040302 (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

By tradition?

In the first paragraph, it says by tradition Buddha was born in Lumbini, nepal. What does this mean? This is not relevant. There are carbon-dated proofs, that Buddha was born in Nepal . Its not some tradition fairy tale.

If you have these proofs, you are more than welcome to provide them. Not all scholars place his birthplace as Lumbinī, but this is the traditionally accepted place of his birth, one that most (but not all) scholars agree on. - SudoGhost 22:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1st paragraph.

{{edit semi-protected}} I propose that Buddha's personal family history be added too. He was born to a Shakya royal family in lumbini, nepal. So information regarding him being a prince should be in the 1st paragraph. At the least, it should say about him being a prince from a Shakya family. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

references, please?  Chzz  ►  01:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: http://buddhism.about.com/od/lifeofthebuddha/a/buddhalife.htm http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/siddhartha.html http://www.letusreason.org/buddh2.htm

If you need more, do let me know! DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Place of Birth

I had included the following as possible places of Buddha's birth (with references; see [2]): Lumbini, modern Nepal; Kapilavastu at Piprahwa, Uttar Pradesh, modern India or Kapileswara, Odisha, modern India.

However, my edit was reverted asking me to use the talk page. I agree that Lumbini is the most popular of the list; but it is not academically unequivocally agreed upon. An encyclopedic article need to show from all points of view, not just a single one. Please let me know why it was reverted. Snowcream (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:due regarding "all points of view". if there is a lot of variation on the subject, why not have a separate article dealing with Buddha's birthplace? Much that I have expressed doubts regarding the viability of a historical (rather than religious?) Buddha, I believe that a "birthplace of Buddha" oarticle r some such is warranted and would take the unending disputes away from a page which covers the entire lifespan(s!) of Gautama Buddha (20040302 (talk) 10:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I see no reason how naming 3 contesting birth-sites are undue. I have cited references. Neglecting the existence of academic debate over the site and going on to declare one of them as historically-correct is unbecoming of an encyclopedia. If am not wrong, we do not make judgments here. Snowcream (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your premise, snowcream, however if the debate is substantial enough to have many distinct proponents, surely it warrants it's own article? 20040302 (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well it could have its own article. But why censor some of the claims here and why project one of the claim as "the truth"? Please tell me why you contest the inclusion of the 3 claims in the article. Snowcream (talk) 10:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qadianis are NOT Muslims

There is something severely wrong in this article. It is the consensus amongst Islamic states that those who follow the Qadiani movement (wrongly called Ahmadiyyah in this article) are non-Muslims. They have nothing to do with Islam. They are NOT a sect. Please remove that part of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.143.247 (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to the Ahmadiyya has now been modified - I agree that the term 'sect' can be misleading, and the article itself uses the term "Islamic religious movement". Likewise I believe that the relationship that the Ahmadiyya have with the Muslim World League is not related to this article whatsoever - it is clear that the Ahmadiyya exist, and that they are strongly of an Islamic nature (as opposed to Christian, or Hindu). As for the term 'Qadiani', WP informs me that it has pejorative connotations. (20040302 (talk) 09:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

What do you mean by Other archeological findings ????

Its already said and proven that all those findings related on buddha's birthplace within India is completely fake....So whats the meaning of writing "Other archeological findings postulate that Buddha was born at Kapilavastu at Piprahwa, Uttar Pradesh, India or Kapileswara, Odisha,India."....You can't just say so...Gautam Buddha was born in Kapilvastu, Lumbini, Nepal..Thats d truth...so there's no question about "other archeological findings"..google yourself and you find out the truth about this contoversy...so just remove that line..otherwise its definite dat people will raise their voices.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sznga (talk • contribs) 17:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go through the sources cited. Nothing is written from my prejudices. They are what the sources say. The inscribed pillar which records the visit of Asoka to the place where Buddha was born, exists in modern Nepal as well as modern India. Read the sources. At the end of the day, an elected government makes a claim (see the orissa.gov.in source cited). Wikipedia cannot just ignore all these claims (including Nepal) and cannot go on to declare one as factually correct. Let us not make judgments and present claims as it is. Snowcream (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just laugh at your ignorance...its already proven that all those buddha's birth related findings in India has been declared fake..better you brush up your wits.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.244.80.100 (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

there have been numerous controversies regarding the birth place of Buddha. But following facts cannot be denied by any of the party: - Buddha was born in Kapilvastu of the Lumbini region which is in Nepal. - He was of Shakya clan whose descendants still today belong to Newars residing in Kathmandu and periphery, hence he was of Mongolian origin. - Original Ashokan pillar as appearing in Indian important documents is situated in Nepal which says Buddha was born in this land. - Nepal had never been under any foreign rule even in ancient times where as India was composed of numerous kingly states. India became as we see today only during and after british rule. - Considering all these facts the birth place in Nepal has been booked as world heritage monuments by UNESCO.

Despite all these facts there has been construction of a replica in India of the birthplace to appear same as it is in Lumbini to mould the truth to show that Buddha was born in India just because Buddha was enlightened there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digendra (talk • contribs) 17:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snowcream the sources are not authentic sources as UNESCO, and only lumbini has been cited as Buddhas birthplace by UNESCO. You cannot say other archaeological findings and put your own point of view. I have deleted the false claims. If anyone wished to revert it, please talk and explain here before you do so.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 05:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other claims are from sources including Government of Orissa, Rediff, The Hindu etc. UNESCO is not the final authority here in wikipedia; Wikipedia articulates all significant perspectives. Moreover, it has been explicitly mentioned that Lumbini is the UNESCO world heritage site. Don't just push your version and delete others. Snowcream (talk) 10:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Government of Orissa? Government of india might say Nepal is in India, does that mean wikipedia should mislead others saying nepal is in india? NO. UNESCO is the last authority for any cultural heritage sites. But I know why you are attached to India.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Buddha was born in Kapilavastu, Nepal not in India..

Buddha was born as Siddhartha Gautama in Lumbini, Nepal approximately 2,500 years ago. Buddha, Known as the Lord of Asia, was born in Lumbini, Nepal during the full moon day in the month of Baisakh in 623 BC. He was born under a sal (Shorea robusta) tree when Mayadevi was going to her maternal town on the occasion of delivery Yeah Nepal is the country with the highest mountain Everest. Paali is the language spoken by Buddha. http://www.palitext.com/subpages/lan_lit… His techings , proverbs, Tripitak , quotations are all found in Nepalese language presently.

I give you more information on Lumbini here: its important-- In December 1980, a team of scholars from U.S.A. and Nepal, under the leadership of Dr. J.H. Hutchison, of which other members were Dr. James Munthe, Mrs. Dr. K. Munthe, Dr. R.M. West and Mr. Vishnu Dāńgol, T.U., fossil remains of Ramapithecus were found in a place near Butwal on the bank of the river Tināu attached to the rocks cliff. A piece of the upper left jaw which is 1 cm. in width and more than 1 cm. in length is kept in the Natural Museum in Kathmandu. It was dated approximately eleven million years old on the basis of palaeomagnetic dating method. This hominoid finding is own as the oldest in Asia and the second oldest in the world. Its life style and civilization was similar to the Kenyapithecus and Brahmapithecus of Asia. Having been great forest area the pre-historic men used to live by hunting and gathering wild fruits in the neighborhood of Lumbini. Source(s): http://www.sleuteltotinzicht.nl/hlp011.h… http://www.lumbini.info/sacredhistory.as… http://www.palitext.com/subpages/lan_lit… — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshan Thapa Magar (talk • contribs) 05:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False birth information

Clearly, we can see user sudoghost and snowcream vandalising the article with unverified sources of birth claims when the truth is simple and clear from UNESCO. As the countries are identified by UN, so are cultural heritages by UNESCO. You cannot just add information based on state governments claims. If the US says canada is in US , do you put that info on wiki or do you ask UN whats the truth. Administrators should stop making the article a mess and stop sudo and snowcream from putting wrong information when Nepal is in the brink of celebrating Visit Lumbini 2012 for Buddhas celebration sake. Thousans of tourists and people from the world will be misled with sudo's information. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have sufficiently explained to DBhuwanSurfer why all significant perspectives need to be added in Wikipedia to create a neutral view (as in [3] ). However the user insists that UNESCO is the last authority for any cultural heritage sites (see [4]) and in such indifference to exclude from the article what he/she doesn't desire construes to me as a Conflict of Interest with Wikipedia. I am not willing to waste my time debating with such a user. Snowcream (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:NOTVAND and explain which of those my edit is claimed to have fallen under. Otherwise, please stop asserting that I have vandalized any article. The content you're removing does not contest the fact that UNESCO says what you're saying. It merely adds reliably sourced statements that say "other archeological findings postulate..." But to use your example, if the United States Government claimed that Canada was in the United States, then yes, it would be perfectly acceptable to place "The United States claims that Canada..." in the article. These other sources are saying other sites are speculated, so it is not "wrong information" to state exactly that, that other sources say other sites are possible. That Nepal might not make as much money from tourism because this article reflects reliable sources is not a reason to remove the information. - SudoGhost 17:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both users put their own point of view as of now. No time to explain as there is no debate. Veteran editors like sudo have been reverting edits putting their own point of views and not allowing any debates for agreements. user like snowcream come from nowhere with no verifiable claims (all of your claims are your own research and own point of view) and then add any stuff they want in a article like Gautam buddha. There cannot be a consensus if there is no debate., and there cannot be debate if people with power misuse it and provide false information to the world misleading it ultimately. When everything was working perfect and some of us even agreed to use the word Indian subcontinent instead of lumbini Nepal, when we did not have to as its completely misleading, users like snowcream and sudo come and put their own point of views with their own research. I am done explaining as clearly the veteran editor has no desire for discussion and agreement and clearly is inclined to put false information about buddhas birth in india.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to what I've gathered, you are the problem, DBSSURFER, not Snowcream or SudoGhost. I've been told you have been attacking them, accusing them of vandalism and such. There is no problem with having a discussion about something you disagree with, but please, don't personally attack other editors when discussing. Thanks. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not attacked. They are the ones attacking me and others supporting Buddhas birthplace in Nepal. I would have liked you all's comments if this had a facebook like button. You feel proud to mislead the world, dont you?DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why you've continued to remove the content, because it hurting Nepal's tourism is not a very good reason to remove reliably sourced content. Thank you. - SudoGhost 04:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's why. As user skar explained Majority of the scholars' view is that he was born in Lumbini, modern day Nepal; no need to include minority views in the Introduction, it can be written below in other sections. You snowcream and all agree about lumbini, so there is consensus. However, many dont agree about india as you can see from long lists of several discussion topics. So it is not in consensus. And nonagreeable details should not be added.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That the birthplace is Lumbini is not an indisputable fact, but is the generally agreed upon location which is reflected in the article. However, prominent reliable sources also suggest other locations, which is also reflected in the article. However, if you could please provide a link for these "long lists of several discussion topics" specifically discussing this, I'd be grateful, and it would help support your position. The only discussions I saw were not relevant to this discussion, instead discussing the wording of where Lumbini is and where it was in the time of Siddhartha Gautama. - SudoGhost 15:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of the discussions above have talked about the topics we are discussing. Do not pretend that you cannot see it! And all of them have consensus for lumbini, none of them have consensus of anything about india.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can see where you could be confused. The above discussions were about Lumbini being in Nepal vs. Lumbini being in (what was then considered) India. This is not the same as discussing reliable sources about other sites, completely unrelated to Lumbini. Thus, there is no consensus to remove reliably sourced information. - SudoGhost 20:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not try to confuse everyone by going away from the issue. I present a factual source : http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=1,1686,0,0,1,0 . The researcher from india has nullified the orissa source of birth claim. Now we have sources that do not agree with each other about orissa as the birth place. Such disputed information should not be highlighted in the opening paragraph of a religious leader. As such I am deleting some of the disputed claims. And here is a worldwide view of Lumbini as the birthplace: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/666.

If you wish to contest this, give a good reason now why a disputed information should be put in the front of an article as I have presented you with sources that nullify orissa or any other indian birth claims.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deleting sourced information, as it is akin to vandalism at this point. Just because one source contradicts another, is not a valid reason for deleting one. Now regardless of this nonsense, a good point has been raised: the introduction is way too long, and there is no reason to include the geography of his birth in this section. Introductions should be short and succinct – the type of very basic and very general material that does not stir up the sentiments of crude nationalism. Tengu800 14:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop adding disputed information then. Not putting geography of birth of a historical figure? That cannot be done sorry. Can you give me a single source where government of india has claimed anywhere else than lumbini as buddhas birthplace? If so then present it and I shall withdraw my edits. Just because there is a single paper published by an unknown writer of orissa does not mean we refuse the government of nepal, government of india and the worldwide view of lumbini as buddhas birthplace.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the government of the Republic of India need to claim something in order for a reliable source to be valid? Governments are not archaeologists, and are not the final word on archaeological findings. - SudoGhost 18:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DBSSURFER, material does not need to be undisputed in order to be added to Wikipedia. Tengu800 20:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sakyamuni

"Sakyamuni" is a redirect to Gautama Buddha. But what is Sakyamuni? I could not find it in the article. This seems to be a larger problem: a redirect which is not assessed in the article. 85.217.20.33 (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This only a problem as far as searching in the page is concerned, because of special characters. The second paragraph of the lede explains the name Śākyamuni, but search for "Sakyamuni" will not pull that up. Searching for "Shakyamuni" misses this first reference as well, although the article does reference that name later on (which is another problem, because it means we are using two different spellings of the same name). I'm not sure what the solution is.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the italics to bold for this name. Tengu800 00:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could not have figured that out. And did not want read the whole article now. In fact I was only searching for Pagoda of Fogong Temple in China, also known as "Sakyamuni Pagoda". Odd thing that "Sakyamuni Pagoda" itself redirects to "Seokgatap" which is in South Korea. 85.217.20.33 (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Buddha&oldid=461897705"