Talk:The Buddha

Buddha general description

Buddha was born in Nepal and he started his preaching from Nepal and not India. There is a big global political misunderstanding about his birth and teachhing that started from India and the word India in case of lord buddha in India is totally wrong. Buddha is a term used to describe the completely developed potential of each life. Once that life is competely aware of the causes of suffering and able to live only in truth from wisdom and compassion without any limitation then they made be called a Buddha. Siddhartha Buddha is the only such life to have lived on the earth. However according to his teachings every life has the potential to reach this stage and countless numbers of Buddhas exist in different dimensions at any time. He was born in Nepal, Lumbini and started preaching from Nepal itself although there is a misunderstanding about his birth and preaching in India first. Because every life has the potential to become Buddha there is no limit to the number of Buddhas. This is the main teaching which Siddartha Buddha explained as being the difference between Buddhism and the religions of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.168.151 (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

He was born in a Hindu family, he gained enlightenment in India, he lived in India, he first taught in India, and he was born right on the boarder of what is NOW known as Nepal, on the boarder near India....and you want to say he was Nepali?....

Look dude, there was no such thing as Nepal or India. But there is an Ancient India. The fair thing to do would be to say he was from Ancient India, in what is now known as Nepal. This is how it is doen for every article in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.92.200 (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It's an old comment, and there's little point in responding to nationalistic sentiment. "Ancient India" redirects to Outline of ancient India, which defines the phrase in myriad ways. (Btw, I think you mean border, although I suppose that being born on a boarder would likely confer notability even if one didn't have a major religion named after oneself.) Rivertorch (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Buddism is a SECT Dhamma is the teaching of the Buddha.

I'm sorry but Buddism is a sect...it that was created from the teachings of budda... he never wanted sects created in his name... Dhamma was his teaching and dhamma taught in its pure form is universal. Dhamma must remain universal because suffering is universal. Suffering and Misery is not only belonging to one perticular religion, county or sect. What enlighted person would have a religion or a sect?? None and not Buddah thats for sure. I urge you to look up Pure Dhamma and the meditation technique of Vipassna(dealing with fealing you sensations because sensation is the root cause o our misery... root of desire comes from the physical bodily sensations and this was the buddahs teachings... Learn to pay attention to your sensations and not react to them to remain equinimous. Look up Pure Dhamma and the teachings or SN Goenka or any other teacher who has read and stuied Pali the buddahs native tounge and find this truth for your self.

I am new to Buddhism and Dhamma and trying to learn more. I don't know how controversial what you're saying here is, but I find it interesting the idea that Gautama might not have been seeking to have a religion or sect named after him. Relatedly, it says in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_(Buddhism)#Dharma_in_Buddhism that "[Buddhism is] a word invented by British scholars and Christian missionaries at the beginning of the nineteenth century". Evan R. Murphy (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Buddhism is an English word, so it is naturally of fairly recent vintage. How closely it corresponds to terms used by pre-modern Asians is a different story. There's a term in modern Chinese which is quite close to the meaning of the English word Buddhism, but I suspect it main be a modern coinage.—2001:558:6033:39:552E:7E60:8A90:CF7 (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Was he real?

Hi guys, asked before, but archived before answered... Forgive me for asking but this article appears to be written in such a way as to assume that this guy really existed. Are there any contemporary sources which prove that? How about something written at the time of his life by a "hostile witness"... Someone who acknowledged he did exist, but did not support him. Looking at the tone of say Jesus and looking at this article it appears that the author is far more certain that Buddha was real than Jesus. 92.233.49.173 (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that's because it is the subject of much more discussion with regard to Jesus. Jesus lived in a time and place that is well-documented historically. The Buddha did not. Some scholars have concluded that the historicity of Jesus is likely or unlikely, but with regard to the Buddha there's simply a dearth of evidence.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Could we perhaps have a 'Historicity of Jesus' article, as there is a Historicity of Jesus article? At least a mention somewhere here about questions regarding his existence. - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 April 2013

Buddha was born in nepal and not india.travel lumbini for authentiation. you will find the answer. there is no doubt siddhartha gautam buddha was born in Nepal, it is as true as nepal is country of Mount everest and country of gurkhas who fight until death . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.38.111 (talk) 04:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for offering your opinion. Please note that Wikipedia's content must be verifiable using reliable sources. Rivertorch (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 May 2013

Add Gautama Buddha to either Category:Indian yogis or Category:Yogis. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogi:

"The word Yogi (Sanskrit: masc yogī, योगी ; fem yoginī) originally referred in the Classical Sanskrit of the Puranas specifically to a male practitioner of Yoga. In the same literature yoginī is the term used for female practitioners as well as divine goddesses and enlightened mothers, all revered as aspects of the Divine Mother Devi, without whom there would be no yogis. The two terms are still used today but the word Yogi is also generically used to refer to both male and female practitioners of yoga and related meditative practices in Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism etc."

Also, see:

"The Buddha was a dedicated yogin with a passion and unique gift for meditative absorption, and his teaching was primarily designed to show a concrete way out of the maze of spiritually ignorant and hence sorrowful existence. Like Patanjali’s Yoga, the Yoga of the Buddha comprises eight distinct members or “limbs” (anga)."

Source: Feuerstein, Georg (2001-10-31). The Yoga Tradition: Its History, Literature, Philosophy and Practice (Kindle Locations 5720-5723). SCB Distributors - A. Kindle Edition. Ewj001 - (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it if Feuerstein is a truly reliable source. But you've got a point, though many will disagree. See Siddhi for example. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Just curious, why would Feuerstein be considered not "a truly reliable source"? --Ewj001 (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, according to page 95 of Early Buddhism and the Bhagavadgåitåa by K. N. Upadhyaya:

"From internal references of the Pali Nikāya themselves, we know that Buddha learnt some impersonal yogic trances from his teachers, Alara Kalama and Udaka Ramaputta... Before the attainment of enlightenment, in the course of trying different methods, Buddha is found to practise some breath-control as well... When we compare the yoga of Buddhism with the yoga described in the Yoga Sutra of Patanjali, the similarities are so striking that they hardly leave any doubt regarding the one being influenced by the other." --Ewj001 (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, according to page xi of Teachings of Buddha by Jack Kornfield:

"For some years the Buddha practiced as an austere yogi in the forests of India." --Ewj001 (talk) 04:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, according to page xx of Buddha by Karen Armstrong:

"He [Buddha] taught his disciples that if they wanted to achieve enlightenment, they must abandon their homes, become mendicant monks, and practice the mental disciplines of yoga, as he had done." --Ewj001 (talk) 04:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, according to page 61 of Buddha by Karen Armstrong:

"Gotama was an incredibly gifted student. Yoga usually required a long apprenticeship that could last a lifetime, but in quite a short time, Gotama was able to tell his master [Alara Kalama] that he had reached the plane of "Nothingness" too... Gotama had no problem with the yogic method and would use it for the rest of his life." --Ewj001 (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Response by JJ: Feuerstein is a good writer, but it seems to me that he has a bias toward propagating yoga. He's more like a primary source than a secondary source.

Reagrding the objections against qualifying the Buddha as a yogin: he rejected severe austerities. But... yoga-oractices are a part of Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Response to JJ: I see your point and agree with your observation that Feuerstein is "more like a primary source than a secondary source." --Ewj001 (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Gautama Buddha is currently tagged under the following categories: Hindu philosophers and Ascetics. What would be your thoughts on this? --Ewj001 (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines yogi as "a person who practices yoga" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yogi). If Gautama Buddha went to teachers of yoga (Alara Kalama and Udaka Ramaputta) and also practiced yoga before his enlightenment (as also indicated by Karen Armstrong), wouldn't the term "yogi" apply for categorization purposes? --Ewj001 (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Currently, Nagarjuna is tagged under the category of Buddhist yogis. --Ewj001 (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

According to page 313 of The Integrity of the Yoga Darsana: A Reconsideration of the Classical Yoga by Ian Wicher:

"Gautama the Buddha ... is referred to in the Pali canon as being devoted to meditation, and the later Sanskrit scriptures of Mahayana Buddhism often refer to him as a yogin." --Ewj001 (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

According to 254 of Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Purāṇas by Swami Parmeshwaranand:

"In a few Puranic passages Buddha has been clearly described as a yogin. He is said to be a yogacarya." --Ewj001 (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

According to page 20 of Tibet's Great Yogi Milarepa: A Biography from the Tibetan by W. Y. Evans-Wentz:

"Many Great Yogis, as was the case with Gautama the Buddha..." --Ewj001 (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

According to page 77 of Buddha by Karen Armstrong:

"When Gotama had studied yoga with Alara Kalama..." --Ewj001 (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Added article to Indian yogis category based on sources located so far and will continue to locate more sources. --Ewj001 (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC

Dates

The time of Gautama's birth and death is uncertain: most historians in the early 20th century dated his lifetime as circa 563 BCE to 483 BCE,[14] but more recent opinion dates his death to between 486 and 483 BCE or, according to some, between 411 and 400 BCE.[15] [note 4] However, at a specialist symposium on this question held in 1988 in Göttingen,[14] the majority of those scholars who presented definite opinions gave dates within 20 years either side of 400 BCE for the Buddha's death, with others supporting earlier or later dates. These alternative chronologies, however, have not yet been accepted by all other historians.[16][17]

1. The "but" in "but more recent opinion..." does not seem to properly lead into what follows since a date of "486 and 483 BCE" is hardly inconsistent with "circa 483 BCE".

2. What does "alternative chronologies" refer to? "between 411 and 400 BCE"? "dates within 20 years either side of 400 BCE"? "earlier or later dates"? All of the above? And which of the previously mentioned date ranges are these chronologies "alternative" to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.19.50 (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 May 2013

1 upon hearing the dream,the wise men of the kingdom predicted the queen would give birth to a son who would become a great king or leave and become a 72.227.128.203 (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.- Camyoung54 ^talk 00:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

Time to clean up those articles... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

I reworded it as two sentences. Here's the current version. Hopefully, this will be clearer:

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

—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Much better. Rivertorch (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Concerning primary sources

Regarding: 18:28, 11 June 2013‎ Joshua Jonathan (talk | contribs) undoing quotes from primary sources. You have to do your research before you undo contributions based on PRIMARY sources from the Pali canon or you end up looking grossly uninformed. The Itivittika was one of the earliest texts in Buddhism and even pre-dates the Pali Nikayas, and the quote from Itivuttika 22, Group of Ones, is IDENTICAL to the language used in the Anguttara Nikaya 7.59 from the Māpuññabhāyi Sutta. The Group of One language from the Itivittika is also identical to that found in the Chinese Agamas, removing the sectarian issue altogether. You really can't get better sourcing than that for a quote given that is attributable to the Buddha. If you personally don't like this quote, then this is your POV rather than a serious attempt to contribute to this article. Wiki is not the place to air your POV about Buddhism but to describe the subject as accurately as possible using primary sources if available, and then secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbrahmana (talk • contribs)

It's actually the other way around; primary sources are only used with care, and secondary sources are preferred. The header change in your edit is another reason (though minor) why it was reverted; sections are not capitalized unless the header is a proper noun or title, and it is not in this case. Given your username, it also seems extremely promotional to include a quote, presumably from your own book, in the article. That's the kind of thing that needs to be discussed before being placed back in the article since it gives undue weight to your own opinion and appears to be a potential conflict of interest. - SudoGhost 03:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I am fine with the title capitalization issue. The title should reflect the content in this section, and therefore should read: "Divine nature in traditional depictions". One of these traditional depictions of the Buddha's divine nature is from the discourses actually given from the Buddha in the quotes from the Itivuttika and Anguttara Nikaya. These Pali canon primary sources are deemed acceptable everywhere else on Wiki on the topic of Buddhism, including from the quote from Andrew Skilton's book above the quote I provided, which is from the Majjhima Nikaya (MN). The practice of quoting a published author and then supporting it further with primary sources is sound editing, and eliminates the bias concern on the part of the author, as anyone can simply look up the primary source themselves and determine whether the quote is accurate. I did provide a link to Access to Insight for the Itivuttika 22, Group of Ones, language which is nearly identical to what was provided in this article. I also cited the Pali Text Society (PTS) translation from Pali to English for the Anguttara Nikaya 7.59 supporting source material from the Māpuññabhāyi Sutta. So far from any 'personal bias' concerning the contribution I have made, the addition provided is as close as we can come to the actual words from the historical Buddha concerning his divinity claims. The addition should therefore be allowed, as it gives the reader a more authentic account of what the Buddha thought about his own divinity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbrahmana (talk • contribs) 04:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment by JJ - Dear Mbrahmana, there are five problems with your edit:

• As sudoGhost wrote, Wikipedia is not based on primary sources, but on reliable secondary sources
• Your book "Why God Became a Buddha" is not WP:RS
• Using it as a source is indeed self-promotional
• The section was mostly about "Divine Nature in Traditional Depictions" after your edits
• The sutras are not reliable accounts for the exact sayings of the Buddha:

While most scholars agree that there was a rough body of sacred literature (disputed) that a relatively early community (disputed) maintained and trasnmitted, we have little confidence that much, if any, of surviving Buddhist scripture is actually the word of the historical Buddha. (Ronald M. Davidson, "Indian Esoteric Buddhism", p.147)

Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem Joshua Jonathan is that YOUR point of view on the reliability of the Pali suttas is NOT authoritative at all. In fact, it sounds like sectarian Mahayana nonsense from your use of the Sanskrit word 'sutra' instead of the Pali 'sutta' that was used in the edit, and used by all Theravada Buddhist scholars. You are certainly free to include the Mahayana perspective on the Pali suttas, but this should not be the ONLY point of view that we see on Wiki regarding the Buddha and Buddhism. After all, Mahayana Buddhism was a MUCH later addition to Buddhism and was dramatically adapted to local Asian cultures and practices as it moved eastward to China and Japan. This makes the 'sutras' not very reliable, but you can't say the same thing about Pali sources without EVIDENCE. The evidence we have here in Sri Lanka are palm leaves dating to the First Century BCE directly from the Fourth Buddhist council whose sole mission was to preserve the Pali oral tradition so we have - as close as we can - a record of what the Buddha actually said. The actual quote I use is the same language we find in the Chinese Agamas that many Mahayana Buddhists now claim as the primary source material for what the Buddha said.

The fact that you have no problem with Andrew Skilton's quote from the Pali suttas (Majjhima Nikaya) in the same Wiki section, but have a problem when the Pali suttas are used to extend further the point made by Skilton shows some sort of personal bias on your part that has no place on Wikipedia if you really are interested in neutrality. You sound like far too many so-called editors on Wiki of Buddhist material that disguise their Mahayana bias to edit GENERAL material about the Buddha and Buddhism that really does need neutrality or have both the Theravada and Mahayana (and Vajrayana) perspective fully represented. The Pali suttas as a whole - not just the quote offered - reflect the divine nature of the Buddha from the time before he was reborn as Siddhattha Gotama, and throughout his 40-year ministry. To omit this fact from Wiki is a GROSS distortion of the Buddha and Buddhism, and does a disservice to the Wiki reader seeking to understand who the Buddha was and his divine nature.

The issue under discussion are your edits, not Andrew Skilton; bringing him up is WP:OSE. My "point of view on the reliability of the Pali suttas" is based on a reliable source, which provides the "evidence" you're asking for. See WP:RS. To call this "sectarian nonsense" won't help to reach WP:CONCENSUS. You're perfectly free to believe in "the divine nature of the Buddha from the time before he was reborn as Siddhattha Gotama", but to call this a fact reflects a misunderstanding of the differnce between "facts" and beliefs. At best, you can write (in article) "According to this-or-that source, Theravda beliefs that...". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The book Why God Became a Buddha by Metteyya Brahmana is self-published by the author. Its publisher, Anagami Publishing, has no web presence except to list this one book at http://www.anagamipublishing.com and that web domain, per the whois records at GoDaddy.com, lists the author, Metteyya Brahmana, as the domain registrant. One of the most basic tests of a secondary reliable source is that the publisher of the source have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Self-published works have no such reputation and may be used as reliable sources under Wikipedia policy only in two instances:

• "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." per WP:SELFPUBLISH, but I can find no indication that this author fits within this category.
• "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" per WP:ABOUTSELF which is clearly not the case here since the book is not being used as a source of information about the author.

It does not appear that the book is a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The word "first" implies no predecessor.

The article tells us that '"Buddha" is also used as a title for the first awakened being' while the infobox identifies a predecessor called Kassapa Buddha. Perhaps the article could resolve this contradiction as a courtesy to readers. — O'Dea (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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 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)