Jump to content

Talk:The Buddha/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

"Royal Hindu Familiy" & unreliable source

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

WHy do non Hindu people always like to put there elbows up? We use the word Hindu, because thats how we refer to them. Your not HIndu. So you don't get it. So since you dont get it, you shouldnt waste your time in this debate Josh. 108.23.228.249 (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I read decent books, which give reliable information. So you're right, I don't get this faith-perspective. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Udit Sharma (2002), Teachings And Philosophy Of Buddha is an unreliable source. It's not a scholarly source, but a token of Hindutva-thought:

  • "His life is a celestial event of great magnitude in the annals of Hindu tradition. To say that whatever he preached and practised was different from the Hindu philosophy is like denying the truthful reality. In fact, Buddhism emerged from Hinduism, because he was born as a Hindu, in a Hindu family, his lineage being Hindu, and above all, he was born in Hindustan."(p.5)
  • "Has (sic) concept of 'Rebirth' also has roots in Hinduism." (p.5)
  • "Lastly, freedom from Dukka, rebirth and 'Nirvana' are the atrributes of Hinduism." (p.5)

To speak about "Hinduism" around 500 BCE is anachronistic; the "Hindu synthesis"[1] or "classical synthesis"[2] emerged only around the beginning of the Common Era, as a synthesis of Vedic traditions (plural), sharmanic traditions, and local cults. The concept of "rebirth" and liberation from "samsara" don't have Vedic origins, but shramanic origins.[3] According to Geoffrey Samuel, the Buddha was born as a kshatriya,[2] in a moderate Vedic culture at the central Ganges Plain area, where the shramana-traditions developed. This area had a moderate Vedic culture, where the kshatriyas were the highest varna, in contrast to the Brahmanic ideology of Kuru-Panchala, were the Brahmins had become the highest varna. Both the Vedic culture and the shramana tradition contributed to the emergence of Hinduism around the start of the Common Era. See Hiltebeitel (2002), Samuel (2008), especially p.127-128, and Holt (2013), p.10-11

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Sources

  • Flood, Gavin (2008), The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, John Wiley & Sons
  • Hiltebeitel, Alf (2002), Hinduism. In: Joseph Kitagawa, "The Religious Traditions of Asia: Religion, History, and Culture", Routledge
  • Samuel, Geoffrey (2010), The Origins of Yoga and Tantra. Indic Religions to the Thirteenth Century, Cambridge University Press
Buddha was born of a hindu royal family. If the word hindu is not liked, then insert the term Kshatriya. It is better to refer to the term Hindu because the Vedas, Upanishads are all part of Hinduism. I will rather refer to Swami Vivekananda's references to Buddha to form a better opinion. Manipadmehum (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
"Kshatriya" in the context of early Buddhism is a Vedic term, not a Hindu term. The fact that "the Vedas, Upanishads are all part of Hinduism" does not imply that the Buddha was a Hindu, nor that the Vedas and Upanishads were "Hindu" at the time they were composed. I've given several references to reliable sources; I think you should read them, instead of repeating yourself. Hunduism is a synthesis of a broad range of traditions, which took shape under socio-economic and political circumstances (ask the simple question: who's the boss, which religious specialists does the boss need for support? Which religion was better able to incorporate popular religion: Brahmanism or Buddhism?) This is the standard scholarly opinion, and so obvious, that I actuually don't understand why people don't see this. is it a matter of misinformation? Not familiair with contemporary scholarship?
Regarding Vivekananda, see Talk:Yoga#Vivekananda & Early Buddhist Texts. Utterly unreliable.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Added both Hindu and Kshatriya, and a lot better source. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe right away that the source is a lot better. Nevertheless, the use of the term "Hindu" in this context and for this age is incorrect and misleading, as I've explained before. You'll have to come with better sources than Hiltebeitel, Samuel, etc, to reject the scholarly concensus on the emergence of the "Hindu synthesis" and its timing. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Oldest trace of "Hindu" term is from 6th Century BCE, means before buddhism. And it's worth mentioning that he born in Kshatriya family. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
No problem with the mentioning of "Kshatriya", on the contrary. Just take care where in the article. Regarding the term "Hindu", I think you need to be very carefull on this. There's a lot of research available on the use of this term, so anything that even slightly resembles WP:OR should be avoided here. The fact that the earliest mentioning of the term "Hindu" is from the 6th century BCE, does not mean that what we today know or recognzie as "Hinduism" existed at that time.
regarding Vivekananda, maybe also see this article: Comans, Michael (1993), The Question of the Importance of Samadhi in Modern and Classical Advaita Vedanta. In: Philosophy East and West Vol. 43, No. 1 (Jan. 1993), pp. 19–38. (PDF)
Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Vivekananda? Anyways you should revert your edit if you agreed with Kshatriya, but remove "Hindu" from there. That's it. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Done. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if it's getting annoying but "ruling family" can be mentioned, we have to depict that he was born into a family which rich/powerful, etc. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

You're right - I think. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't want Buddhas history to be ripped away and twisted to suit Christians and Modern nepal people?

I feel nepal is getting abit greedy with historical information so allow me to just clarify some issues which link india In historical terms.

1. Buddha chose to live and die in Kushinagar, India (why not in Nepal) ?

2.At the time of buddha the "Nepal people" wrote in the writing system of NEPA, But The Earliest Buddhist text aswell as his earliest written name are written in ancient Indian Sanskrit and Indian pali, If Buddha had no link to ancient india as nepal people are now claiming, Then why are on earth does his scriptures & his name not seem to be written in The writing system of NEPA? instead his earliest history seems to be more linked with ancient India linguistics.

3. Buddhas historical description written in his text stated he had deep blue Eyes,this is also backed up on another Wikipedia page called Physical characteristics of the Buddha which describe him having a lot of facial hair and curly chest & head hair, this is a trait not found in today's Nepal people but is seen alot in india, eyes colors in india range from green,hazel to blue.

4.Buddhas favorite sports Ancient indian wrestling and Archery, Nepa people dont have any history or handed down traditions of wrestling, india on the other hand has a HUGE history on princes training in wrestling.


5. Buddhas scripture of the (The Udana) seems to be taken from the hindu scripture of Mundaka Upanishad, as seen bellow!

“In the highest golden sheath is Brahman, stainless, without parts; Pure is it, the light of lights. This is what the knower's of the Self know. The sun shines not there, nor the moon and stars, these lightnings shine not, where then could this fire be? His shining illumines all this world. Brahman, verily, is this Deathless.”(Hindu scripture) -Mundaka Upanishad

“Where water, earth, heat and wind find no footing, there no stars gleam, no sun is made visible, there shines no moon, there the darkness is not found; When the sage, the brahmin, himself in wisdom knows this place he is freed from the form and formless realms, from happiness and suffering.”(Buddha) in the —the Udana

In Buddhism text Brahman seems to be written as Brahmana.

Also was Buddha linked to The Magadha dynasty of ancient India, im not 100% sure about that but from what i understand The Magadha dynasty practiced the same traditions as buddhas family, which maybe why we see buddha include such hindu gods as INDRA and BRAHMA and so on into his religions of Buddhism.

5.sage who gave buddha his title seems to be historically linked to india as well, i just wanted to show that india does indeed have a similar claim to the history of buddha without a shadow of a doubt, The writer of this page has done a great job but i would love for him to add the sports which buddha did in his youth, thank you.82.38.161.217 (talk) 11:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Veda

Buddha being in Nepal is similar to Mukesh Ambani born in Yemen. Enough said. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Buddha, caste & 3rr

While checking the recent edits of User:Bladesmulti, and reversing several of them, I realised the WP:3RR rule also applies here. I left two edits on the caste system [1] [2] which loook to me like POV-pushing, and an anachronistic use of the term "Hindu". The central Ganges Plain at the Buddha's lifetime definitely had a varna-system, but it was not as strict as the varna-system at the western Ganges Plain (see Samuel (2010), The origins of Yoga and Tantra). I've already made 3 reverts, which leaves these two waiting.

The following sentence should be added back, but without the last part: " From the outset, Buddhism was equally open to all races and classes, and had no caste structure[, as was the rule for most Hindus in the-then society.]"

It was re-inserted by Bladesmulti with this edit-summary: "But this one is POV pushing, there's not a single religion among major religions that are "open" to only certain people." As a matter of fact, that's exactly what was the effect of the Brahmanical ideology: excluding people from the rituals which garantueed access to heaven after death (Samuel (2010)). my mistake that I didn't remove the last part when I reverted.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

There's no generalization of castes, before 200 BCE or 200 CE, in other words, those things happened a lot, after buddha. Even avesta(written around present day india) haven't mentioned any castes in this sense, same with vedas, and upanishads i think. If multiple user conflict between same edit, then it's 3rr.. This was just random cleanup i guess. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

New Archaeological Evidence for Birthdate

See this recent article <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/science/new-clues-may-change-buddhas-date-of-birth.html> which while doesn't have a hard and fast date, puts the birthdate in the 6th century BCE, which is definitely different from the source indicated for dating the Buddha. This Wikipedia article has a reasonable range of dates but the source cited has a much different range of dates. In any case, the Buddhist Era calendars are likely more correct, rather than less, since it puts the birthdate at 543 BCE. --Jeffmcneill (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this information should be included as it does come from scientific sources Archaeological Discoveries Confirm Early Date of Buddha's Life 86.139.84.234 (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

No clear evidence that this has anything to do with a historical Buddha or even with Buddhism. See: http://sujato.wordpress.com/2013/11/28/the-date-of-the-buddhas-birth/. Jonathan Silk: "what has been found is wood beneath the Asokan layer. There is *no* indication that the wood is connected with the Buddha in any way shape or form. … And in fact, except for a single—I would say incautious—sentence, the article basically says this… the traditional spot rebuilt by Asoka had earlier a wooden structure upon it. What that structure may have been, and whether it could conceivably have had any connection with the Buddha—no evidence at all!" Tengu800 12:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The article by Coningham was also commented by Richard Gombrich on the Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies’ website, available in Tricycle/blog: Recent discovery of “earliest Buddhist shrine” a sham?. Gombrich concludes: "In nothing that has been unearthed is there a single trace to suggest anything to do with Buddhism." And: "The entire story presented to us in the headlines is a fantasy, and I feel sad that the only time when my subject, the history of early Buddhism, makes the news, it is because of self-serving hype, more worthy of a politician than of an academic." JimRenge (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Buddha ashes stolen

Asking editor to add the latest news about buddhas ashes being stolen, its is very important that this is made clear on the main page of buddha in case the ahes are changed to hide buddhas true gentics.

Maybe 10 years down the line buddhas ashes will be brought back after being swapped? 82.38.160.153 (talk) 05:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)ved

Disputed entry, read Piprahwa, Bones of the Buddha. I agree those pages needs some improvement if you have already thought about it. But it would be me someday. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I assume you are talking about the recent theft of relics in Cambodia. This might possibly be relevant to the Relics associated with Buddha article. JimRenge (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for the reply and happy with both answers82.38.160.153 (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)ved

Mention of blue eyes in appearance section

The 32 characteristics of Buddha is a metaphorical concept which predates Buddhism and the existence of Buddha. This is proven by the fact that the seer Asita, upon meeting Gautama Buddha for the first time, mentioned that he had the 32 characteristics of a great man.

In other, more verifiable sources, such as the Tipitaka, it is very clear that the Buddha's physical appearance was normal in every way. When King Ajātasattu went to meet him he was unable to distinguish him from the disciples surrounding him (D.I,50). If the Buddha had any of the 32 Signs the king would have recognized him immediately. Pukkasāti sat talking to the Buddha for hours before realizing who he was (M.III,238). If the Buddha had any of the Signs the young man would have soon noticed it and known that he was someone unusual. When Upaka encountered the Buddha walking along the road to Gaya the thing he noticed most about him was 'clear faculities and radiant complexion' (M.I,170). He did not mention seeing any of the 32 Signs.

In the Buddha's teachings, the external and the physical are always subordinate to the internal and the psychological (S.I,169). The Buddha was aware of the Brahmanical concept that a ‘great man' could be known by his physical characteristics and he rejected this notion. Someone once asked him: ‘They talk about a ‘great man,' a ‘great man.' But what is it that makes a great man?' The Buddha replied: ‘It is by freeing the mind that someone becomes a great man. Without freeing the mind one cannot be a great man' (S.V,157).

Thus, the mention of Buddha's "blue eyes" should be removed due to its historically inaccuracy and its potential use for Eurocentric historical revisionism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.79.218.158 (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I only gave this information out due to the fact that it is part of buddhas history, people today feel the need to hide this information From the world but whats the point? it will be seen sooner or later by a avid reader of buddhist scriptures, so no point hiding this just to please a few people.
Im sure his description in his own text wont matter to Indians, well maybe it would matter to nepal people who dont have the combination of blue eyes and curly hair and lots of chest hair, but then again nepal historians state that Gopalas and Abhiras who are ancient indians lived in nepal before todays mixed Tibet,Burmese race of nepal people, i think its interesting personally so please do link in to this page.82.38.160.13 (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Ved

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2014

Anuragbarclays07 (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Historicity, dating, archeology

Unless I misunderstood, there would have been an oral tradition spanning hundred years before the written accounts, and there are relics, which are difficult to conclusively link to Gautama. The historicity section points to one still-ambiguous discovery (Maya Devi Temple, Lumbini), and specifies that there was previously a consensus reached for around 400BC. I have followed some of the references and they agree, but it seems difficult to find more information about the archeological findings which were used to establish these dates. It would be nice if someone who knows more about it could point to some of the interesting archeological evidence in the historicity section. I'm only beginning to learn about the origins of buddhism, and after reading the article I am still left with many questions. I was also strucked by the frequency of fictious biographies and mythological founders when reading about other traditions, and it is currently unclear to me if it's not also the case for the Buddha. Thanks, 76.10.128.192 (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to resume, after reading more (and I could be mistaken), Buddhism could have emerged from an earlier Vedic tradition (possibly going back to prehistoric times in the region, also claimed to have had a long oral tradition, but with texts dating far back as 1000-400BC like the Rigveda, and some early texts about reincarnation and mantras around 800BC, in the "formative period for Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism" like the Upanishads)... This could also explain the similar theme of Gutama initially secluding to meditate in his quest for truth, belief in reincarnation, etc. Although not attempting to propose this as an official view in the article, where the transition occurs might be indicated by some archeologic discoveries around 600-400BC possibly (which is what would be interesting to document in the article IMO). 76.10.128.192 (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh and interestingly some of the Puranas also refer to the Buddha (~500-300BC) 76.10.128.192 (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Another interesting recent article on the subject: [3]. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2014

Dear Sir/Madam,

I want to request you please remove this text from Wikipedia.Lord Gautam Buddha is not a Vishnu 9th Avatar because there were no proofs the people who is said this. Hindu people just create a copy of all god's. If they are true people than they must have to prove when their God Vishnu, Shiva will be born. This people don't have answer for this question that's why this religion is only belongs to India and Hindu people don't have guts to hear the truth. Hindu people god's are non-fictious and not present in real life ever. They just have created to make a religion for making income and to made a people fool.

So I searched lot on Google and made this conclusion. So Please I request you to remove the below text and image also.

Some Hindus regard Gautama as the 9th avatar of Vishnu.[note 6]

Waiting for your optimistic response.

Thanks and Regards, Nikhil Chauhan


Nikhil.m.chauhan (talk) 06:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sam Sailor Sing 08:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

A minor point

In the historical section it notes that "No written records about Gautama have been found from his lifetime or several centuries thereafter."

However, in Popular Archeology at http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/03012014/article/archaeologists-uncover-earliest-evidence-of-birth-of-buddha it notes that "Long lost and hidden by jungle overgrowth, ancient Lumbini was rediscovered in 1896 and, because of an inscription on a sandstone pillar discovered at the site, was identified as the birthplace of the Buddha. The inscription bears record of a historic visit by 3rd century India's Emperor Ashoka to the site of the Buddha's birth. The inscription also included the site's name as Lumbini."

Does this not mean that while the first century BCE Gandhāran Buddhist texts are the earliest Buddhist texts, the pillar is the first written reference to the historical Gautama? (The Ashokan pillars also contain written inscriptions referencing Buddhism.) I could not find the translation of the script on the pillar, photographed here http://www.travelomy.com/ashoka-pillar-of-lumbini-photos-videos#Inscription-on-the-Pillar-4e02cc41e1787 but apparently it refers to Gautama and Lumbini being his birthplace and therefore tax free http://www.travelomy.com/ashoka-pillar-of-lumbini. Star A Star (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2014

Buddha#Conception and birth possibly elsewhere. Buddha was born at lumbine Nepal and it's proved by UNESCO. And wikipedia is one of the most popular site and giving wrong information about Buddha which one is same. That's why i request to wikipedia change Buddha born at Lumbini Nepal. 80.238.67.241 (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)]]

Various possibilities are being mentioned. Present-day Lumbini is one of them. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2014

Respected sir, This article seems nice but We ( from Nepal) think you should mention clearly in the introduction part that where was Buddha born i.e in Lumbini, Nepal rather you have mentioned in northeastern India. You should know that we are not always introduced by India and we have our own identity. Of course, for this we will go to the locals & up to upper level. You should verify whether the information is reliable or not.

Thank You.

Regards, Surina from NEPAL.

Surna meher (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Lumbini is one of several possibilities, though the most likely one, which is clear from the article. "Nepal" did not exist at the Buddha's time. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2014

Need to change the word Buddha to Lord Buddha Jdhdineshkumara (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Per WP:NPOV, honorifics are not added to the names of religious figures. For example, we do not write Muhammad (PBUH) or Lord Jesus Christ. --NeilN talk to me 10:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Section "awakening" should read "enlightenment" or "awakening to enlightenment"

Hi there,

Look I've noticed this is a bit of a pattern at Wikipedia, you like to strip subjects of their dressing as if to somehow reveal that you know a subject because you have cut it back to its bare bones, it does not follow that this is some kind of experience in the subject yet you pretend it to be so.

In this case, you have called Buddha's enlightenment "awakening" when it is not awakening for its own sake. It's a bit like saying "clock" for midday and expecting people trying to learn the subject of midday by the word clock, just because the word clock is related doesn't make it a more accurate picture of midday. It is inept.

If I said to you, you don't really know who you are, you are just "name", you would be offended, well it is the same here.

I understand that you can take a devoted or an honourable approach to knowledge, and you have prefered an honourable approach, but limiting honour that sounds like devotion even when objectively it makes no difference is disingenuous.

Please change this.58.6.242.229 (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Sources, please? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

citation [39] page numbers

The quote from Michael Carrithers is on page 3; I think that should be added as a minor edit. --AlixeTiir (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2014

Nattykml (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC) The birth place of gautham buddha is not in ancinet nepal it is stiil nepal so please make correction as Nepal not in ancient Nepal

If you can show a photo-copy of Gautama's Nepalese passport. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: The article does not say "ancient Nepal". —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I've added "nowadays" to the sentence: "Gautama was born in Lumbini, nowadays in modern-day Nepal". At the time of the Buddha, there was no "Nepal". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Footnote format

The footnote format in this article is weird and inconsistent. Is there a reason to use footnotes labelled "note", and footnotes just with the bare numbers? I suggest to remove these "note" labels, probably by replacing the refn metatag with the standard < ref > metatag. -Kathedra87 (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The two types are serving different functions. You will note that one leads to the references while the other leads to notes.
A reference like < ref > that has just a superscript number in the main body is an indication of a source cited, sometimes with a brief quote from the source or something similar. It should be a pointer to where one may verify the fact cited.
The things which appear as [ note x ] are footnotes that offer explanations or elaborations that might be distracting in the main text or serve to clutter it. For example, the current fourth footnote explains an etymology of the word Buddha. This would be extremely intrusive in the main body. That this footnote contains a source citation is largely an expediency as otherwise one would have to place a reference tag in the footnote so that it too could be verified.
Waerloeg (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Pali or Sanskrit based spelling?

Generally the spellings seem to be based on Sanskrit with Pali spellings only mentioned in notes or parentheses. The article names on following links also appear to be Sanskrit based. I take it then that Sanskrit transliteration is to be preferred. Is there a policy or a consensus somewhere on this matter? Waerloeg (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Usually, articles which are related to Theravada, its doctrines and developments, use Pali as primary and Sanskrit in brackets, Mahayana-related articles rather Sanskrit as primary. In articles which are of a general nature, I guess the primary notation would be open for debate, but leaving it as Sanskrit is fine for me, though I am a Theravada Buddhist. I guess it doesn't matter. It is clear from linguistic research that in the beginning, Buddhists used their local Prakrit dialects, from which Pali developed, and Sanskrit became popular outside of Brahminic circles only later. Kathedra87 (talk) 06:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The external links in this article seem a little sparse considering the wealth of good pages/sites on Buddha available on the web. I'd suggest adding the following, at a minimum:

http://www.universaltheosophy.com/bios/gautama-buddha/ This page includes links to several English translations of traditional biographies, along with modern bios, etc. Great resources. If this page isn't ideal to link to, for whatever reason, perhaps it would be just as valuable to link to a few of the traditional bios that are listed there. The same site has a comprehensive bio that covers all the main stages of the Buddha's life based on traditional texts. http://www.universaltheosophy.com/buddha-the-life-of-siddhartha-gautama/

I'd also suggest a link to the excellent PBS documentary on the Buddha: http://www.pbs.org/thebuddha/

A link to the Light of Asia would also be helpful, as it stands as one of the most beautiful outlines of the Buddha's life: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/lightasia.pdf

I would also suggest removing two of the current external links: 1. The "Critical Resources: Buddha and Buddhism" link leads to a page that merely links right back to wikipedia and other sites but offers little content of its own, and 2. The "Photo Feature on early sites of Buddhism" seems rather out of place here, as it's not even about Gautama Buddha, but rather about early Buddhist sites. It offers little to those interested in learning more about Buddha. 88.130.165.235 (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2014

Gautam Buddha was not born in India. This pisses a lot of people in Nepal. People always look up to Wikipedia for sources, please don't provide them wrong information about something that gets the whole country furious.

Thagirlwho (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

 Not done No specific change request made and the article is appropriately balanced. --NeilN talk to me 17:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It is believed that his real name is Gautam Buddha in Nepal, not Gautama Buddha

I saw some areas in the article which says Gautama Buddha. Con you make it Gautama Buddha or Gautam Buddha. I would also like you to add this link. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/666 I saw Maya written in the Article, it should be Maya Devi And this is the Maya Devi Temple http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/666/gallery/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by GauravDhital (talk • contribs) 02:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@GauravDhital: As I noted on your talk page, WP:COMMONNAME is the policy we follow here, not the beliefs of one nation. There are 11.6K hits for "Gautam Buddha" in Google Books and 127K hits for "Gautama Buddha". "Maya" seems to be properly used and the link you suggest is already present as a reference. --NeilN talk to me 02:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2014

The external links in this article seem a little sparse considering the wealth of good pages/sites on Buddha available on the web. I'd suggest adding the following, at a minimum:

http://www.universaltheosophy.com/bios/gautama-buddha/ This page includes links to several English translations of traditional biographies, along with modern bios, etc. Great resources. The same site has a comprehensive bio that covers all the main stages of the Buddha's life based on traditional texts. http://www.universaltheosophy.com/buddha-the-life-of-siddhartha-gautama/

I'd also suggest a link to the excellent PBS documentary on the Buddha: http://www.pbs.org/thebuddha/

A link to the Light of Asia would also be helpful, as it stands as one of the most beautiful outlines of the Buddha's life: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/lightasia.pdf 23.16.192.252 (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please discuss to conclude on the reliability of these links. You could also go through WP:V and WP:RS for a better understanding. — LeoFrank  Talk 16:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Nature of traditional depictions

Can we remove unreliable source? tag from Gautama_Buddha#Nature of traditional depictions? Citation seems to be reliable. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The original discussion about the Karen Armstrong quote can be found in the archive.
Talk:Gautama_Buddha/Archive_6#Karen_Armstrong_quote --Kathedra87 (talk) 09:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Birthplace

Over the past few days, new editors have attempted to assign the subject a specific birthplace. User:Joshua Jonathan/Gautama Buddha Birthplace sources and quotes should be read and a discussion needs to happen before doing this. --NeilN talk to me 14:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess I should add this 6th century BCE shrine. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The problematic edits may be seen in the context of local/national pride and an expected increase in tourism.
I think this article should be semi-protected to reduce the number of unconstructive edits. JimRenge (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Historicity

"Scholars are hesitant to make unqualified claims about the historical facts of the Buddha's life."

It has not been clarified as well as it had to be, we will have to rethink about it.

"According to the Theravada Tripitaka scriptures[which?] (from Pali, meaning "three baskets"), Gautama was born in Kapilavastu or Lumbini, nowadays in modern-day Nepal, around the year 563 BCE, and raised in Kapilavastu."

You cannot find exact dating or geolocation in any of the Theravada Tripitaka texts. They believed that he was born around 6th century BCE - 5th century BCE, but not more than that. I think we can rephrase so that pointed sentence(According to the Theravada Tripitaka scriptures...) can be removed. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

There are some relevant sources in the Piprahwa article and one in Kapilavastu, which I just added: "Traditional Buddhist sources claim that Kapilavastu was the childhood home of Gautama Buddha, on account of it being the capital of the Shakyas, over whom his father ruled.[4]" It doesn't say anything about where Buddha was born or how long he lived there.  Philg88 ♦talk 07:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2014

Please change the text "The evidence of the early texts suggests that Siddhārtha Gautama was born in the Shakya clan, a community that was on the periphery, both geographically and culturally, of the northeastern Indian subcontinent in the 5th century BCE." to "The evidence of the early texts suggests that Siddhārtha Gautama was born in the Shakya clan, a community that was on the periphery, both geographically and culturally, of the central Nepal, who are still living there till date." because Budhha was born in Nepal and in Nepali Shakya Community and Lumbini was never even a part of India. Please refer to the ancient map of Nepal (included in source) to see that how most parts of India were in Nepal before. Also I saw a lot of confusions about the birth date of Budhha. Please refer to secondCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). source for that. 72.227.155.247 (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC) [5] [6] [7]

 Not done Usage of the Indian subcontinent is accurate. --NeilN talk to me 14:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Indian Continent is not Nepal.AmRit GhiMire "Ranjit" 01:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you read Indian_subcontinent#Definition. --NeilN talk to me 03:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Nation centric

The article is more centric on India assuming whole life of Gautam Buddha was concentrated in India only. In the revision,[4],

He is believed to have lived and taught mostly in South Asia precisely present Nepal and India sometime between the sixth and fourth centuries BCE. (Warder 2000, p.45)

The text is correct but is replaced by India only, time and again.
Next the birth place of Gautam Buddha is assumed to be at Nepal. But taking light of a single book, India is added with leaving the topic in Disputed topic.
I hope this nationcentric nature will be made neutral. AmRit GhiMire "Ranjit" 16:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

He may have born in Nepal, but he spent almost all of his life in present day India. UNESCO's website only support his birth in Nepal, it is not supporting your thought that "He is believed to have lived and taught mostly in Nepal". UNESCO is not WP:RS for this kind of view, it says that Buddha was born in 643 BCE, now that's new. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The Buddha wasn't born in Nepal; he was born in the Sakya-territory. "Nepal" didn't exist at that time, nor did the state of India. "India" is a generic term here for South-Asia. And he spend most of his time in Gandhara and surrounding states. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan: I am using present Nepal. Then existance of Nepal at that time is not a topic. Next can you explain why India can be used as generic term for South Asia?? AmRit GhiMire "Ranjit" 07:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
@Bladesmulti: Why is UNESCO not a reliable source? Can you explain? Next it is true that Gautam Buddha stayed in the palace where he was borned. He was borned in Lumbini Nepal. Then why are you removing Nepal ?? AmRit GhiMire "Ranjit" 07:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Please just read the link for "Birthplace disputed", the note next to it, and Wikipedia:Gautama Buddha Birthplace sources and quotes. This issue has been debated over and over and over again. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan: Read it clearly first. It doesn't refuse Lumbini as Birth place of Gautam Buddha. It is widely accepted except by some Indian. AmRit GhiMire "Ranjit" 08:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
You can quit gossiping now, and get on the facts. It is widely disputed and none of your sources claim that he lived most of his life in Nepal, you are misrepresenting that faulty citation. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Explain me how is that faulty citation. AmRit GhiMire "Ranjit" 12:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I did, told you that "UNESCO is not WP:RS for this kind of view, it says that Buddha was born in 643 BCE, now that's new." Bladesmulti (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, we do cite the UNESCO - together with other sources. We don't decide what's "true", we just give various possibilities. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I found one[5], although it doesn't support anything like "he spent most of his life in Nepal" same with the previous citation. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Siddhartha is said to have spent 29 years as a prince in Kapilavastu. Although his father ensured that Siddhartha was provided.............

[1]

Narada (1992), A Manual of Buddhism, Buddha Educational Foundation, ISBN A Manual of Buddhism. ISBN 967-9920-58-5.

So please include

He is believed to have lived and taught mostly in South Asia precisely present Nepal and India sometime between the sixth and fourth centuries BCE. (Warder 2000, p.45)

in the page. I cannot add it because of the fear of being blocked. AmRit GhiMire "Ranjit" 15:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Narada (1992), A Manual of Buddhism, Buddha Educational Foundation, ISBN A Manual of Buddhism. ISBN 967-9920-58-5.
15 years of life(your claim) minus 80 years. What about the 65 years he spent in Eastern India? Just book titles are not going to help, you have to also provide the page numbers. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I think 29 and 15 are not same right? AmRit GhiMire "Ranjit" 04:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that his being born in Nepal is not accepted by all reliable sources, so the article really should not make claims that reliable sources don't agree on. Some sources do make these claims, and the article could make note that some sources believe this, but not that it's a universal truth that just is. - Aoidh (talk) 08:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment on reliable secondary sources for articles on Buddhism

The RfC by Dorje108 states that:

"I propose that texts written by Buddhist writers and teachers that explain basic Buddhist concepts should be considered secondary sources as long as they meet the criteria specified in the guidelines (regardless of whether or not the writer has Western academic training). Do you support this?"

Please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism

Robert Walker (talk) 07:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we end the edit war regarding Buddha's birthplace?

I just made a bold edit regarding the Buddha's birthplace saying that Buddha's birth place is in Lumbini in present day Nepal. This is based on serious scholarly consensus. The source with Tripathy is not reliable, and should be taken as a fringe view worth mentioning only in a footnote. Anyone disputing it, please discuss in Joshua's userpage Wikipedia:Gautama Buddha Birthplace sources and quotes. What is genuinely disputed by scholars is the location of Kapilvastu, not Lumbini. Manoguru (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Bold? Am I missing an edit? You added "[Kapilavastu], which may either be in present day Tilaurakot, Nepal or Piprahwa, India." Which is fine, I guess. Anyway, this will probably drag on forever. So be it; the Buddha advised not to be attached to views and opinions... Cheers, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Haha, no, the edit was in the infobox regarding the Lumbini issue (here). Bladesmulti reverted it citing that s/he wants Aoidh's opinions. I respect that sentiment. And am waiting to hear from him/her. Anyway, this bogus debate has dragged on for too long. Peace!! P.S. The scholar Reza Aslan had written a fascinating book called Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth where he puts Jesus in his historical context and paints a story of that time. I wonder if some enterprising Buddhist scholar can do the same with Siddartha. To quote Buddha, samsara is nirvana. :D Manoguru (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Manoguru. Virtually every scholarly source agrees that Gautama Buddha spent the first 29 years of his life in Kapilavastu, but that his birth was in Lumbini Grove. Gethin's unreferenced assertion in his 1998 book ("Foundations of Buddhism") that Kapilavastu is the birthplace of the Buddha does not constitute anything close to scholarly consensus. It is misleading to the reader to suggest that there is significant controversy about the birthplace of the Buddha. The matter of the precise location of the historical city of Kapilavastu however is another matter. DiverDave (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that "serious scholarly consensus" changes depending on the given location someone wants to see on the article. If you look at the article throughout the past couple of years, at any given point there will be a very serious claim backed by various reliable sources claiming completely opposite things. Just because the sources currently in the article have been cherry-picked to support this particular viewpoint means very little and the article should not present a claim, even if it's a likely claim, as a fact, and certainly not in the infobox. - Aoidh (talk) 07:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a nuance here: the "scholarly agreement" seems to be that according to Buddhist tradition Lumbini is the birthplace of the Buddha. When that nuance is included, which it is now, it's fine with me. Personally I don't care what may have been the birthplace of the Buddha; it seems irrelevant to me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Lumbini is the birthplace of the Buddha according to a Buddhist tradition, but saying that it's "Buddhist tradition" implies that this is something that Buddhists believe, whether it be true or not. That is not the case. - Aoidh (talk) 08:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Aoidh, I get a feeling that you did not bother reading the discussion in the talk page of Wikipedia:Gautama Buddha Birthplace sources and quotes. I do not find it profitable to reproduce those arguments here. However in summary, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding. 1. There is no debate about his birthplace, Lumbini, as in the legends given in Jataka tales. 2. What can be debated is the current location of that legendary place. 3. There are two hypothesis of where this legendary Lumbini might be located: Lumbini of Nepal and Lumbei of Orissa. 4. Both cite an Asokan inscription to bolster their claim. 5. The inscription in Orissa has been proved to be a forgery (at least since the 1960s) and no scholar has refuted this accusation so far. Conclusion: Sure there are two contending hypotheses, but those two hypotheses are not the same. You should not lose your objectivity in the name of neutrality. It is true that Buddha was not born with a birth certificate, but as far as we can tell, Lumbini of Nepal stands as the "not falsified" hypothesis; as encyclopedists, we might as well stick with the scholarly consensus. If in some future date, this too is falsified, then it would be time to change this claim too. Manoguru (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
P.S. I also get this sinking feeling that you are reading my nationality rather than my arguments. In the meantime, I will revert the birthplace to be Lumbini, in present day Nepal, unless you can provide a more reliable source than Mohapatra and Tripathy.
Manoguru, your sinking feeling is inaccurate, as up until just now I had not looked nor have I mentioned it in any way as it's irrelevant nor have I even responded to you or addressed you in any way, so please don't dismiss my comments by assuming that I'm dismissing yours. I'm not. - Aoidh (talk) 08:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
It is largely irrelevant to clarify the location of Lumbini as Nepal, it is what we know according to Buddhist tradition and some archeological evidence. There is a dispute, keep it per Buddhist tradition, yes we tried to end the edit war regarding Buddha's birthplace that's why we had to include the traditional knowledge. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

What's your point? By your same logic then, we might as well say his death place as Kushinagar as per Buddhist tradition and omit the "present day India" qualifier. It is not a dispute among the scholars, and we should not present the content in a manner that a causal reader might come off with an impression that there really is a serious dispute going on about this issue. Manoguru (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

A middle way!! Taking a cue from the Jesus infobox, maybe its a good idea to drop all reference to current geography, and simply refer to the ancient geography during the time of Buddha. I think its the best compromise, which maybe agreeable to all. We can mention the current locations in footnotes. Peace! Manoguru (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Manoguru, I did read the discussion, and everything you said is already addressed in what I've already said, so I likewise will not repeat it. Do scholarly sources have a consensus about Lumbini? No. Lumbini is a likely location and is mentioned in some "traditions", but not enough to make it the one mention in the infobox. What's written in the article proper is fine because it explains, but the infobox is meant to be an at-a-glance summary even more concise than the lede, and what's written in the infobox is not a good reflection of what the article and sources summarize. The infobox should not list any location, because there's not a single location that scholarly sources agree on, and even if we assume Lumbini was agreed on, the location of Lumbini isn't even agreed on! That's too much variance and vagueness to warrant mentioning it in the infobox which is meant to be as simple as possible. This doesn't belong in the infobox, what was there before worked. Maybe it shouldn't say "Birthplace disputed" but something more neutral (if such a thing were possible) with the wikilink pointing to the relevant section, but what's there needs to be changed as it isn't an accurate assessment of what sources say, because sources vary in all of this to such a degree that it's inappropriate to favor one over the others. - Aoidh (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The scholarly sources all agree on the Sakya Republic, and none propose an alternative location to Lumbini. Since a footnote is also being used to indicate the source, having both the footnote and 'according to Buddhist tradition' seems redundant. Why not just use the footnote? Given that the tradition and the other sources seem to agree on Lumbini, leaving it out of the infobox seems like an over-excess of caution- introducing more uncertainty than the scholastic and religious traditions provide. His birthplace is not 'disputed' or 'unknown' but rather 'generally recognized but incompletely documented'. --Spasemunki (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel you are simply toeing a bureaucratic line rather than looking at reasoning, Aoidh. About a month ago, following the cited sources, I had tried to learn more about this birthplace controversy, only to learn that there isn't one, much like climate change isn't a controversy even though there are deniers. The real controversy revolves around the current location of Kapilvastu and not Lumbini. Like I mentioned before, there is a difference between objectivity and neutrality. Two teams can claim to have won a football match. A referee can simply shrug and declare both their claims to be equally valid and announce that the winner cannot be decided. That is neutrality, which you seem to be pushing for. On the other hand, the referee can check the score board, and tally the goals, and declare the winner. This is objectivity which I am pushing for. Do scholarly sources have a consensus about Lumbini? No. This is factually incorrect. Tripathy and Mohapatra are not scholars. One is a government officer and another a novelist. Even if they were scholars, two scholars agreeing with each other does not make a consensus. Nothing in what you have written in your response have given me any good reason (except maybe a bureaucratic one) to change my mind. I would love to hear details of your views, and what exactly you mean by "traditions" that does not agree on Lumbini. Which tradition is that and which scholars are you talking about? To take the Jesus analogy, I hope its not like the Muslim tradition that believes Jesus never died on cross, or the Mormons who believe that Jesus visited the Americas. I would invite you to take this discussion to Wikipedia:Gautama Buddha Birthplace sources and quotes and would love to hear more about your views. I am quite happy with simply putting the names of the ancient republics. It makes it more historically accurate, and does not trample on anyone's sensibility. Manoguru (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Gautama Buddha

गोतम बुद्धा महान संत थे लेकिन वो विष्णु के अवतार नहीं थे', बुद्ध ने ईश्वर की सत्ता को नाकारा, Gotam budhha Neglet the avatar of God, They are Not Avatar of Vishnu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.91.157.15 (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It says some, not all. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

A simple edit request

As in the article, Present day India is included in Death place, can't Present day Nepal be included after Lumbini .I tried it but NeilN reverted the edit. So I want to make WP:CONSENSUS here. AmRit GhiMire "Ranjit" 13:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I wonder why Bladesmulti is ahead in reverting my edit.

Is adding following info against WP:NPOV ?

"King Śuddhodana and Queen Māyādevī are believed to have lived at Kapilavastu, as did their son Prince Siddartha Gautama until he left the palace at the age of 29.[1]"
  1. ^ Trainor, K (2010). "Kapilavastu". In Keown, D; Prebish, CS (eds.). Encyclopedia of Buddhism. Milton Park, UK: Routledge. pp. 436–7. ISBN 978-0-415-55624-8.
WP:UNDUE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
But I was just adding that Gautam Buddha was grown up in Kapilavastu.Is it WP:UNDUE ? AmRit GhiMire "Ranjit" 14:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It's being mentioned in the article. It's undue for the lead. What's relevant is that he grew up in the area of "greater Gandhara". It's not relevant that now, 2,500 years later, that area is part of the state of Nepal. You're not interested in Buddha or Buddhism, nor in improving Wikipedia, but only in associating your nationality with a figure of great stature, to enhance your personal self-esteem. The Buddha may be relevant for Nepal, but Nepal is not relevant for Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It may be right

The Buddha may be relevant for Nepal, but Nepal is not relevant for Buddhism. But it was also removed from Nepal. Next in the lead Nepal is not mentioned due to WP:UNDUE as per you but inclusion of India related info is not WP:UNDUE.

Also in infobox Present day India is not undue but Present day Nepal is undue as per you. Can you explain reason? AmRit GhiMire "Ranjit" 15:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
You are making a Wikipedia:Point without reading those citations. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Amrit Ghimire Ranjit: ...Sigh...You're still not getting it are you? Please abide by the rules or go someplace else.  Philg88 ♦talk 16:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, any nationality is not important in this regard, but what is important is 'Fact'. Birth place and birth date are globally accepted to be the one of the important information for biography. How come it becomes nationality or self esteem ego if you include true information which is even validated by UNESCO? What is the purpose of forcefully including India and its old empires in first two paragraphs and forgetting his grow up and impact in today's world ? Are not these information equally important? Why some admins of this page are biased towards some country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.243.28 (talk) 09:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

A question regarding the tradition depiction of Buddha

Does anybody know why Buddha is depicted with hair and a hair bun, when the people involved in early sramana movement had their head shaven. Buddha most likely would have been shaven when he was younger, and bald by the time he was old. I have never understood this, or seen an explanation for it. It might be worth writing down in the article. Manoguru (talk) 07:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

buddha was and is an integral part of hinduism

i gained information beyond limits when i read this page. im an indian and as well as a hindu. im confused to see why bhagwaan buddh ( lord buddha) is depicted as "in other religion" with regard to hinduism. i totally disagree with aformentioned statement which says"buddha was not the avtar of vishnu". buddha is concidered as the manifestation of vishnu in its 9th avtar, and the same is widely regarded by most. yes since hinduism predates to the time when indus valley civilization was booming,and its possible that certain regional dieties may also be concidered by some, to be manifestation of god, but bhagwaaan buddh was clearly an avtar of vishnu as per "vishnu puran , narad puran , garud puran" and many more. yes he himself refused to acknowledge that , but a divine soul, a great sage and a great guru, will but offcourse say so.after all he was above material punchant. also, hinduism is not only a religion but a philosophy too. it is flexible and based on focal point that truth is same but has different manifestations. it believes that the eternal energy reincarnates to uplift mankind ,time and again. bhagwaan pashuram also was a hermit. please dont just limit Him in hinduism to "other religions". atleast in beginning it can be mentioned, that he is a "known to be 9th avatar of vishnu", other wiki pages have done so, then why not this page which is about Him please revert back. for most this is a matter of faith. thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nurmengrad (talk • contribs) 15:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

birth place

Lumbini lies in nepal. Why birthplace of Buddha is not mentioned in page? Nepal most be use instead of shakya Republic. Cause shakya Republic is not exist. Oikuchu (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The Shakya Republic was the state that existed at the time of the Buddha. The ancient states are used rather than the modern borders due to repeated edit warring. Nepal is identified as the modern location of Lumbini in the history section, in accordance with the contemporary border. You can find more information in the archived talk pages if you are interested. --Spasemunki (talk) 07:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

iranian root

please use this source in the article.its about recently research about his Iranian root by indian researcher.Iroony (talk) 07:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Totally speculative. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Is Buddha a role model for the human male?

Is the Buddha a role model for the human male? Should a man walk away from the responsibility of supporting a wife and child? 86.178.174.160 (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Please "do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article." (WP:TPNO) Best regards JimRenge (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Soapbox? Isn't religion, any religion about following a role model? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.49.121.243 (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Mahaparinirvana

what was reason for gautama buddhhas death? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.97.216.215 (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read the article, section Mahaparinirvana and the references given. JimRenge (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Birthplace (2)

I think that it could say "Bharat Varsha" instead of "Shakya Republic", actually, there was only "Bharat Varsha" in the times that Buddha was born. --201.141.132.80 (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a cite for that? What is "Bharata Varsha"? Ogress smash! 03:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Vishnu Purana, beginning of the Common Era. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Um... no. It cannot say "Bhāratavarṣa". The Sakya Republic was not "India"; it was one of many janapadas. Some sources note about this time there might have been as many as 25 countries in what is now North India, Nepal, Bengal and Pakistan. Ogress smash! 11:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Successor? Maitreya?

Is there any need of writing "future successor" in infobox? Is there any source where Buddha himself predicted his successor in future? How authentic this info is to be written in infobox? As we have written in front of "birth" and "death" that "according to Buddhist tradition" then successor "Maitreya" is according to which tradition? Either we remove "Maitreya" from infobox or at least we should write its according to which Buddhist tradition"? Because Buddhism has more than 30 schools and not every school thinks that "Maitreya" is successor or "future Buddha".--Human3015 knock knock • 19:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any cites? Even the Pāli Canon mentions him in the form Metteya, and he and Gautama Buddha are the most common iconographic representations in the very first Buddhist figurative art, Greco-Buddhist art. If we can find cites that state that in early Buddhism, Maitreya was not present, that's what we need. Otherwise I think Maitreya is pretty established in Buddhist cosmology as the next Buddha. Also, which schools do not think Maitreya is a future Buddha? Alan Sponberg writes, "Along with the figure of Gautama himself, Maitreya is one of the few truly universal symbols occurring throughout the Buddhist tradition[.]" (page 2 of Sponberg, Alan; Hardacre, Helen (1988). Maitreya, the Future Buddha: Edited by Alan Sponberg and Helen Hardacre. CUP Archive. ISBN 978-0-521-34344-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)). Ogress smash! 12:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Race&ethnic origin

All of Buddhist deites have Mongoloid feature and it indicates that Buddhism originated among Asian people. Hindu deites have Europoid feature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.160.39.12 (talk) 02:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Please tell me this is a joke.VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Why is Template:Jainism topics now on this page?

Why does Gautama Buddha now have template:Jainism topics on it? Ogress smash! 17:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Ogress, yes agree with you. Specially that template was not having any mention of Buddha. There is argument that both Buddha and Mahaveera were contemporary to each other. Also both have basically taught non-violence, both are related to India, and both looks same. People want to project Mahaveera as many people outside India are not very much aware about Mahaveera while everyone knows Buddha as Buddhism exists in large extent outside India. So that maybe just attempt to spread teachings of Mahaveer Jaina. --Human3015Send WikiLove  17:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The editor Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs) is making sweeping changes to many articles on Wikipedia such as this one, including creating the badly-named Template:Infobox Jain Gods. His edits are solely about Jainism. Ogress smash! 17:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree with you that Mahavira and Buddha were two seperate entities of Ancient History. Just added the template, because the article had references to jain scriptures. If it is not required here, I will keep it in mind next time. I am relatively new to wikipedia and trying to learn its hard censorship rules.-- Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs) 17:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
This is not censorship. You are making huge edits from a strong POV without RS. We welcome the enthusiasm and energy, but not the lack of RS and POV. If I added Template:early Buddhism to Mahavira's page, I reckon you'd be (correctly) furious. Ogress smash! 17:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Now what's POV and RS? Please try not to use such slangs. As already mentioned, the article has references to jain scriptures hence added the template. Also, it is a known fact that there mentions of Lord Buddha in Jain scriptures as well. You should have been angry if I re-added it after your pinging me. But, I guess you are just a angry moderator, and hope that god (whoever you pray to) help you to cool your anger and find some peace soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capankajsmilyo (talk • contribs) 17:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
@Capankajsmilyo: Please take it easy, you can read above terms here WP:POV,, WP:RS. These are short forms for "Point of View" (POV) (mainly reflects "personal point of view", personal opinions), RS means "Reliable source" (We need to provide reliable independent source for any edit we make). MOreover, about Jaina template, that was not mentioning Buddha in it. I will tell you that, according to Hindu vedas, Buddha is one of incarnation of Lord Vishnu, but we don't have "Hindu template" here. In Islamic Hadith some more than 100,000 prophets sent by Allah are mentioned and many scholars claim that one of them is Buddha (name mentioned in that book is probably "Yudha"). So there can be various claims. But Buddha himself is a separate ideology and claimed to be independent of all these or according to sources available Buddha himself never claimed any divinity or else. So in this article only templates related to Buddhism are relevant. --Human3015Send WikiLove  18:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
@Human3015: OK, got it! Thanks for the links! -- Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs) 18:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Gautama Buddha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

buddhist core eteachings

the article should mention that buddha derived his core teachings from contemporary hinduism that had gone "astray" according to him and that vedic indian philosophy had been tempered with by returning gypsy white aryans to create a class for priests — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.211.124 (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Time to read some serious literature, for example Geoffrey Samuel or Michael Witzel. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Cleaning the lead

The lead has too many inline citations and note tags, it reduces readability. I am assuming it is a summary of the article and does not require so many inline tags. Can they be reduced in the interest of readability? --AmritasyaPutraT 05:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Nature of traditional depictions

This section is odd and confusing. The first paragraph is well cited and claims that the earliest depictions of the Buddha do not depict him as supernatural. The next paragraph, which is not well cited, has multiple cites to the same book but different versions and claims that "traditional" texts depict the Buddha as supernatural and not human. Then there is an entire quote reprinted from one book. It seems that different authors of this section are arguing about whether or not the Buddha was human. Perhaps there is a better way to present this argument objectively and concisely without confusing the greater role of the article as an extended debate on the issue is not proper here. Noblerinthemind (talk) 12:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Buddhism and Jainism

The Article Buddhism and Jainism talks about Buddha finding Middle Way rejecting Jain Philosophy of Hard Penance. Can someone please elaborate on that? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 11:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

As stated below in the Extreme Mahayana Bias section, the "Middle Way" taught by the Buddha was upekkha, or equanimity, in which one is not clinging to pain or pleasure associated with sense objects of the body and mind. Penance through self mortification that causes pain or harm to the body (Jain practice) was rejected because it entails clinging to pain and the suppression of tendencies in the body rather than transcending them through understanding the temporal and fleeting nature (anicca) of pleasant and unpleasant feelings associated with sense objects, viewing both the pleasant and unpleasant in an equal light, and not identifying (anatta) with form, feelings, perceptions, ideas (fabrications), and consciousness as 'I', 'mine', or 'part of me'. A healthy body and mind that is neither clinging to pain nor pleasure actually supports transcendence, and this is why the Buddha finally took some milk rice under the Bodhi tree just prior to his enlightenment - he needed to nourish his body after nearly starving to death, as this supported his transcendence and enabled discovery of the Three Knowledges that were the source of his awakening (See, MN 152). Both starvation and gluttony take the body out of balance, and clinging to pain or pleasure which is mind-made is what leads to starvation or gluttony. Non-clinging to neither pain nor pleasure keeps one in a balanced state of mind. This is the Middle Way that was taught by the historical Buddha.
Unfortunately, the Wiki article completely misses the central point concerning the Middle Way, as the authors and editors associated with the Wiki entry want others to believe the Buddha taught continued clinging to sense phenomena is OK as long as it is not "too extreme". This is not what the Buddha taught, as even 'some' clinging will keep one suffering in samsara, and not in a balanced state of mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.124.243 (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Buddha/Archive_9&oldid=1136384726"