This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
The article as it stands is very vague about which biography or biographies are actually represented here. It uses vague phrases such as the "Buddhist texts" and the "traditional biographies." Yet, it gives a very sanitized story free of anything even remotely supernatural. This seems totally different from traditional biographies such as the Buddhacarita and the Mahavastu. It also seems to go against the Acchariyabbhutadhamma Sutta, which is the earliest canonical biographical material that I know of. Shouldn't this article have some balance and actually reflect the biographies with some accuracy? It seems very dishonest to silently reject all omens and supernatural events while accepting the more "realistic" ones, in an attempt to lend credibility to the material as though it comes from "objective" biographies. It also gives a misleading understanding of how the early Buddhist traditions envisioned the Buddha himself, and strays into certain western fantasies about who we want the Buddha to be. Tengu800 (talk) 02:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
In which case, maybe you are just the person to stick this in! The only caution that comes to my mind is whether this is a Hinayana/Mahayana-type issue which may, or may not, be dealt with in agonising detail elsewhere. But even if it is, I'd think that at least a paragraph or so saying that the scriptures have yet more ornate narratives would be useful. Perhaps with a reference to any longer account elsewhere on wiki. The main thing, I'd think, would be to keep it simple, short, and squarely biographical otherwise readers may be overwhelmed in detail. Just my opinions. I'm sure there are others. Bluehotel (talk) 05:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
It is not prudent to put Hinduism and Buddhism in the same category or level. Hinduism broadly means all the religions and beliefs that originated in Hindustan (India). This amongst others includes the sanatan sects, Jainism, Buddhism and later sects like Sikhism. We see all forms of believers and even non-believers in God, nature worshiper etc. and despite differences and confrontations, all of them lived and grew together and it was not uncommon to find believers of various sects in the same family. Even today we see matrimonial alliances between different sects like Shaivs, Vaishnavs, Shakts, Jains, Sikhs, Buddhists etc.
I will appreciate if we have a healthy discussion on this issue and make relevent changes under all the topics wherever applicable.
agr_mk 17:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agr mk (talk • contribs)
((edit semi-protected)) Nepal Rajiv
Thapa 13:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
((edit semi-protected))
Nepal not idia Thapa 14:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
((edit semi-protected))
template. elektrikSHOOS 17:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)would not it be more suitable if Buddha was described under few separate headings classified according to main Buddhist traditions like Mahayana, Therawada etc.(or maybe mentionig which traditions belive so, when necessary). So there would be less argument over belifes of these different Buddhist traditions as to who Buddha they belive is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigra (talk • contribs) 19:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Rajivtt, I have reverted your reversion because your choice of word-meanings, sentence construction and use of capitalization are, I believe, at variance with a universal English language encyclopedia. My guess is that English is not your first language - and you are none the worse for that, I'm certain. However...
"Apart from indigenous Buddha," -> "indigenous" means native to where it is found. I can make no sense of what you mean by this. Even if you meant to say that, which I don't think you did, this clause is void for uncertainty of meaning. Maybe before reverting again, you could explain what you mean by this, as I really don't know.
"he is also described" -> you don't mean that he is "described", what you mean is he is "regarded". This means that people see, or think of, the Buddha to be a god or prophet. I'm not sure if there is any common understanding of how one would describe a god.
"as a god or prophet in other Religions" -> the word "religions" should not be capitalized.
"such as Hinduism, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and the Bahá'í faith." Same in both versions, after another editor changed "like Hinduism" etc to "such as Hinduism."
I hope this makes things clear. Please be assured that nobody seeks to change the meaning. Only to get the maxiumum accuracy and clarity of this article. I should add that explanations to this level of detail can be very time-consuming, so it's better to assume edits are in good faith. Although I do see a rather bizarre issue over Nepal, in an article which makes it quite clear that the Buddha was born in what is now Nepal. So, I can see how the temperature might be high at present. Bluehotel (talk) 10:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I must admit I'm beginning to get somewhat perplexed about this article and about some editor's actions. Tengu800 has now deleted a perfectly useful quote from one of the latest scholars on the Buddha, saying that the traditional account isn't 100% accurate, but that the Buddha did, in fact, exist. This directly follows a similar kind of judgment from someone called Carrithers.
Tengu800 has sought to delete this important new scholarship (Armstrong is a major historian of this period with books in just about every bookstore in the western world), on grounds that what she says is not "synonymous" with the traditional biography. Again, I'd have to wonder if Tengu800 is really sure of the meaning of the word "synonymous". Armstrong's statement isn't meant to be synonymous with anything.
People coming to the Buddha's biography are going to ask themselves the critical question: did he actually exist? By any reckoning, there is scant evidence that he existed. We are taking about a pre-literate period, with no contemporaneous documentary evidence of any kind. Thus, a noted modern historian essentially saying that she has looked into this and concluded that the Buddha did exist as a historical figure is important material for a biography of the Buddha - which is what this article is supposed to be.
I hope this helps. Tengu800, if you have a different view, can you perhaps explain it so that other editors can have their say on this point. Bluehotel (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
((edit semi-protected))
typo in the paragraph under the heading "Enlightenment". The word appearance is misspelled.
152.15.157.228 (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
This wikipedia page lacks in humanity. Gautama achieved enlightenment because of his great sensitivity and his relentless resolve to find the answer - his quest for the truth was in other words a quest to comprehend why he suffered, and he achieved enlightenment when he understood that salvation lied not in nonexistence, but in God, or compassion. That is why he was deeply grateful of the Bodhi tree - it symbolized purity. It was when he achieved certainty of the existence of the only God that he understood the purpose of life, and the concepts of impermanence and nondualism were a natural consequence, as he finally accepted that the only universal reality could only be goodness - the mind from which thought and thus creation (self-expression) is derived, or the heart that all sentient beings share. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pqwpq (talk • contribs) 12:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Was he Yellow or brown race?Hjdkeo (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
AS a Shakya clan member, Siddhartha Gautama would have been Indo-Aryan in ethnicity. According to the beliefs of his day (remember, Buddha was raised in a Vedic Brahmin culture), Siddhartha was supposed to be the direct descendant of the Aditya, Sons of the Sun, one of 12 clans who claimed their right to rule on the myth they were semi-divine in origin, a common myth in the world. Few people realize that these clans were extremely incestuous. They married only among themselves, holding all others to be beneath them. By that system, their ethnicity would retainits character throughout the historic migration by conquest of the Indic clans eastward through the Ganges Plain. This means that Buddha was ethnically likely to be solidly of original Indic stock, which would place him as a river Indus to river Saraswati person.
Buddha is described as "golden" not yellow. Everyone from Iran to Bangladesh is light brown. When you get down to it, 3 out of four people in the world are light brown, the last quarter being split between people who are dark brown and people who are very pale.
There is some typos in Departure and ascetic life section.
Guatama instead Gautama or Gotama
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.220.232.61 (talk) 06:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
((edit semi-protected))
Gautama Buddha was from Nepal. But In the Article in the top its given "was a spiritual teacher from ancient India" which is wrong. Please consider and stop giving people wrong information. There are many groups in facebook who appose to this and once people know the fact that he was from Nepal then Wiki has a bad name for giving wrong information. 188.39.23.69 (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Lord Gautam Buddha is the Light of the Universe not only the Light of the Asia!Gautam Buddha was physically born in Nepal. He is formless God come to play Divine Plays to teach people how to get enlightened(From mind to soul) or free from suffering,In other words to attained liberation .There is still proof of his divine play from birth to end in Kapilvastu, Lumbini(Nepal). He forbid his disciple don`t pray by making his idol.Once he spoke that " You are also Buddha, I am also Buddha difference is that I am aware of it but you are still in deep sleep. " He has taught how to realize the universal truth! the ultimate truth. Truth is God. According to Lord Gotama Buddha, "All the people in this earth are Buddha. All have Buddha(Self)nature. Here, the Self indicates SOUL. Every living being have Soul. This soul or self nature is Buddha nature. Nowadays people have many paths(ways) to pray or worship the God. There are so many ways but the goal is same. Hence, what the Lord Gotama Buddha saying is that "This world itself is Gumba(Monastery) where Buddha resides. Your Body itself is Gumba (Monastery)where the Lord Gotama Buddha resides. There is only one religion the religion of Love. There is only one caste, the caste of humanity & there is only one God he is Omnipresent! He did not come to established new sect what nowadays people are saying Buddhism, Hindu, Christian, Muslim etc. These are the human made label(Name). He came to this earth to show the whole humanity:the right way! Gotama Buddha infact himself is Supreme One. You may find somewhere his pose indicating I am the Supreme One. But he never talk about God or Soul. He refused to answer such questions.Infact, religion and Dhamma are different word and differnt meaning. Name can be changed, form can be changed but the Dhamma can not be change. Dhamma means the law of nature. Dhamma means the quality of element,the self nature! Let us say the sun in the sky gives light and heat and it is Dhamma of the SUN. However, without the Dhamma of the Sun, there is no life in this earth similarly without the Self(soul)there is no life of living beings. If we follow our self, we never make mistake.But, if we follow our mind(Monkey mind) we may do many many mistake. Hence,Once Buddha spoke that "Ahimsa Parmo Dhamma." If you wake up from yourself, you never do himsa. He came to this earth to unite the people,not divide the people. God never discriminate same like the sun in the sky never discriminate among the living and non living beings. The Lord Buddha`s Dharsan often termed as ShunayaBad. It means he can be visible and invisible. He comes from Zero (0) and merge with Zero (0). He is immortal. He has no start no end. He is omnipresent, omnopotent and omnificent. "You are also Buddha, find Buddha nature in yourself". This is Lord Buddhas profound saying. He was for whole world, He is for whole world and he will be for whole world. His divine play is for whole humanity! This is fact! He did not come to this earth to make sect. The term "Buddha" indicates the selfnature i.e. quality. Infact, the religion is a Greek word which is combination of two words: Re+Ligion. Re= Again, and Ligion= Join back with Supreme one! Hence, the Love is the royal road to close with Supreme one. The main objectives of spiritual (Dhamma) practice is Realising that All is One and One is all. Infact, all are interconnected and interrelated. Blind leads Blinds. Infact, Blind can`t leads the Blind, enlightened one leads the World! Books for Reference- 1)Dhamma- An art of Living (By: Satya Naryan Goenka) 2) Characterology ( By Swami Sachchidananda BishuddaDev) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.148.213.156 (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
In most sentences and references to Nepal in this article, it says "now in" Nepal. But why not the same with india? like this one - "in what is now Nepal, and later to have taught primarily throughout regions of eastern India such as Magadha and Kośala." Using phrase like -in what is now Nepal- with a country which has a thousand years of history and not doing the same with country which came to an existence just from last century.What an inferior "encyclopedic" language ! Are we really talking about a decent history here? or a self motivated exaggerated claims inspired by larger,stronger,more powerful country backed up with the same kind of influential countries of the 21st century? should everyone believe this as an "encyclopedia"?
Gautama Buddha is the correct rendering of title and name in Sanskrit. All the Buddhas are referred to this way consistently in all original Sanskrit sutras. Kanaka Buddha and Krakucanda Buddha, historical Buddhas preceeding Shakyamuni in Kapilavastu, were referred to in this manner in Buddha's own time.
VERY DISTURBING IS THE FACT THAT SEVERAL EXTENDED SECTIONS OF THIS ARTICLE ARE DIRECTLY PLAGIARIZED FROM ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA ONLINE!! THIS ARTICLE USES ENTIRE SECTIONS OF COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL, INLCUDING ILLUSTRATIONS.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.245.97 (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Since Budha is a tile, it should be before of the name... like "Dr. Name", "Ms. Lady".--Esteban Barahona (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I assume you mean the title of "Buddha" which means something like "one who has achieved bodhi." Some titles are appended to a name, such as "rex" which means king (see Oedipus Rex) or M.D.... --124.138.185.194 (talk) 04:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC) (Again, a proper sig: --Darkpoet (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC))
Right, this just presumes a Western word order for titles. Consider a number of titles within Buddhist community that follow the names they modify (Roshi, Rinpoche, etc.) not to mention all Japanese honorifics and titles (-san, -sama, sensei...). I'm sure there are dozens of other examples. Anyway, a "google test" for the primary usage shows overwhelming preference for "Gautama Buddha"—16.6 million hits versus just under 51,000 for the inverse. /Ninly (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
100% i am agree about the above idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oshanz (talk • contribs) 08:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
((edit semi-protected))
there is written that Gautam Buddha is from ancient India. But thats not true. Though he went to India for learning and meditating he is originally from NEPAL
Kshitij.raj.lohani (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
129.10.229.128 (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC) then can you provide me a reliable source which shows Buddha was born in India.
In the Mahaparinibbana Sutra, Buddha's birthplace is decsribed as Kapilavastu (Sanskrit spelling), being near Devadaha, and the River Rohini, all of which are located in the Western Terai of Nepal, some 30 miles from India. Ashoka raised a pillar on the site of Lumbini gardens, which Maya's entourage reached in the same day leaving from Tilaurakot, the citadel of Kapilavastu. Therfore, Lumbini cannot be more than a day's walk from Tilaurakot (royalty were borne on litters carried by footmen in those days). There are a number of archaeological investigations that confirm this matter. Kapilavastu is also described as sitting atop a mesa (or table land), which you do not find on the Uttar Pradesh side of the border in the region Buddha is said to have been born, no do you find this terrain in Bihar nearby. You find the mesa lands only once you cross into Nepal, as you begin to reach the first hills of the Himalaya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.245.97 (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
((edit semi-protected)) Buddha was born in modern day Lumbini, Nepal. It is totally wrong to say that he was from ancient India, since Nepal was never a part of India and there was no place called "India" either. There were small states ruled by kings in South East Asia. I request you to change the sentence that says he was born in ancient India to he was born in Modern day Nepal.
Shreyashb (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
((edit semi-protected))
. Intelligentsium 02:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)THE ABOVE IS QUITE TRUE: Jambudvipa was the name in use for Indic realms at the time, not INdia. AS well, there were the 16 Mahajanapada, referred to in the Mahaparinibbana sutta, most of which are named at some point in the sutta pitaka. Nepal didn't exist yet, either. There is plenty of archaeological evidence that Lumbini is in Nepal, one of them being a pillar erected by Ashoka at Lumbini, another being Fo Xian's very early description of the Shakya kingdom as being two days north of Shravasti, which sits very near the border of Nepal. North of Shravasti is necessarily in Nepal of today. There is not much India left once one travels north from Shravasti.
There is an awful lot of politicking going on with the Buddhist pages, all of which makes Wikipedia look bad.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.245.97 (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Why is the Sanskrit name Siddhartha Gautama (and, by extension, Gautama Buddha) the title of the article and first in the opening paragraph, while the Pali (Siddhattha Gotama) is relegated to parenthesis? Can anyone provide a valid reason why the Sanskrit is given precedence? Mahayanic Chauvinism, or allegations thereof, is a major issue in the Buddhist cultural world and we scholars/encyclopedians of the West need to be careful not to fall into any traps of the Mahayana-centered viewpoint. The Theravada (Pali) comes from earlier sources and may, to that extent, be more attested. I would like to open discussion on this issue. 216.67.39.158 (talk) 12:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The above answer is a good one. As well, Pali is a language proved by etymological linguists to have derived from Sanskrit. AS well, Sanskrit was the language of learning and royalty, which Buddha would certainly have spoken very well. There is no evidence that Pali was in use at this time. Pali derives as an ecclesiatical language under the influence of Buddhism in central and southern India and has typical characteristics of the Malayalam and Dravidian languages of those areas. Pali is a southern dialect of Sanskrit that was established after Buddha died in the church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.245.97 (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
It is genuinely difficult to look at this article and respond with "constructive criticism" because there are fundamental errors that are even built into the structure of the article itself. This may be an example of a subject whereof the Wikipedia's method of "circular" editing doesn't work, partly because you're reliant upon (1) primary source texts of entirely different historical periods as (2) reflected through secondary texts of different academic disciplines.
I think that J. Schober herself would be horrified at the use that is now made of her name in this article: do the editors collectively mean to assert that the Jataka fables are antecedent to the material in the Pali suttapitaka? No, probably not, but somehow the "circular" mode of authorship has ended up asserting this, without any one person making this (self-evidently absurd) decision; if you read the article from the start, you would conclude that the editors had somehow attributed the primacy of Jataka material to Schober's opinion in the middle of that argument.
Meanwhile, someone with another religious bias entirely has opened the article with the notion that primacy should be given to Aśvaghoṣa (2nd century A.D. = much, much more recent than the Pali suttas, folks!) on the spurious grounds that it is a more "complete" biography than what you find in the Pali canon. Apart from the fact that this is an anachronistic argument, and relies on a very poetic notion of what "completeness" means (or why it matters as historical evidence), the now extant work of Aśvaghoṣa is itself incomplete. (If you don't believe me, you can verify this through the magic of google in about five seconds, e.g., "The existing Sanskrit manuscripts are incomplete...", Hajime Nakamura, 1987, Indian Buddhism: a survey with bibliographical notes, p. 133, et seq.)
The article should be restructured to reflect evidence from different periods (and different cultures of origin); in effect, this would cease to conflate (historically and culturally) separate narratives that have developed around the figure of the Buddha. For a less religiously-charged example to consider: Heracles was re-interpreted in an amazing variety of cultures, but if you're attempting to present a "biography" of "the historical heracles" you can't conflate material from ancient Central Asia and what's now Iran (where, indeed, Heracles was adopted and re-interpreted, all the way down the road to China). The latter material could be included, under separate headings, but it would be massively confusing to conflate it with the earliest extant materials from ancient Greece (regardless of however tenuous the connection may be in linking even those Greek materials to a putative historical figure who inspired the legends of Heracles).
You might as well have section 1 or 2 of this article being "The Buddha in the earliest extant Pali sources", and then have a separate section describing the later elaboration of the myth in Sanskrit sources (that are several centuries later, NB) such as Aśvaghoṣa, the Lalitavistara, etc., through to the relatively recent Tibetan, Chinese and Southeast Asian sources (dare I mention Japan?).
The fact of the matter is that even a much more narrowly focused article (dealing with the earliest period only, and limited to India only) would need to separate the evidence found in the Pali suttas from the Vinaya, from the Jatakas and then treat the Nidanakatha in another category entirely (the latter is 5th century A.D., i.e., even later than Ashvaghosa, folks, something discussed in the closing sections of this essay, by the way, http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/12/30/the-buddha-was-bald/ )
Although there have doubtless been plenty of people with good intentions involved in contributing to this thing, it is really difficult to imagine it getting better, and easy to imagine it getting worse. The purpose of an encyclopedia entry cannot be the conflation of evidence from different historical periods, different languages, and different cultures, often separated by considerable gaps of geography as well. I mention the example of Heracles quite intentionally: nobody would say that the Central Asian re-interpretation of Heracles should be excluded from an encyclopedia, but you can't conflate it with (earlier and geographically separate) material from Greece. A good encyclopedia can certainly reflect all of this evidence, but must be very clear about the different periods of time (and different languages sources) that the various versions of the legend originate from.
The biography of the Buddha is probably an unusually difficult task for "decentralized editing", because the editors need to set down guidelines and provide a structure for the article (that would then have consistent standards, requiring clear secondary sources for historical claims made in each section, appealing to different literary corpuses in the salient section only, etc.) or else they need to split the article into several separate articles, and then strictly limit what can be in this central article linking to the others (e.g., you could have a separate article on "The Historical Buddha as Depicted in Sri Lankan Tradition", as opposed to separate articles broaching the Buddha "...as depicted in... x, y & z"; this is not a strategy I'd prefer, but it may be the only one that works, in part because Wikipedia relies on editors with separate competences, and you can't expect the same people to have expertise spanning from Thailand to Tibet). 119.82.253.185 (talk) 08:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
It is not fair to write just "Siddhārtha Gautama (Sanskrit: सिद्धार्थ गौतम; Pali: Siddhattha Gotama) was a spiritual teacher from ancient India who founded Buddhism." when Your wikipedia article already states the birth place of Gautam buddha Lumbini, Nepal..... Is it fair to say just he was from Ancient India? " whose place of birth is said to be Lumbini, Modern Nepal" must be added, otherwise it seems like wikipedia gives emphasis on saying he was from INDIA and showing partiality when everyone's biography strongly starts with the birth place, this article doesn't even talk about his bith place, thats not at all fair. .... If we look into the biography of Prophet Mohammad too...........
Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh (Arabic: ﷴ; Transliteration: Muḥammad;[n 1] pronounced [mʊˈħæmmæd] ( listen); also spelled Muhammed or Mohammed)[n 2][n 3] (ca. 570/571 – June 8, 632),[1] (Monday, 12th Rabi' al-Awwal, Year 11 A.H.) was the founder[n 4] of the religion of Islam,[2]...................
"""""""""""Born in 570 in the Arabian city of Mecca,"""""[8] ................. It clearly states the place of birth and Date.. why not in case of Gautam Buddha..... So information about the place of birth must also be stated! "Siddhārtha Gautama (Sanskrit: सिद्धार्थ गौतम; Pali: Siddhattha Gotama) was a spiritual teacher from ancient India who founded Buddhism is said to be born in Lumbini, Modern Nepal! or Lumbini, Ancient India now in Nepal... I look forward to this ammendement, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishchal pandey (talk • contribs) 06:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Buddha was born in Nepal not in india. Country called india exists only after 1947. But Nepal where buddha was born has been in existence as an independent country since centuries ago. How stupid is it to say someone who born thousands of years ago in a country that has no history of even 100 years. Few century ago as British merged several independent kingdoms together and start calling it india that's how the country got created where you are claiming Buddha was born. But buddha was born in independent Nepal thousands of years ago than the time when British were colonizing the remaining kingdoms in south asia naming it as a whole india. So either open this article to edit or put a notice in your encyclopedia that "only what we think is right no volunteer correction are allowed". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.28.207 (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
can't stop laughing after reading the sentences above. Nepal is a region? what a wisdom! a country having thousand years of history and recognized by UN, is a region for some people. what's the point of diverting the subject to different topics. what is here to do about arguing what Nepal used to do in stone age? with Buddha being born in Nepal. Nothing can be hilarious than this.Firstly, Buddism is a way of life before becoming a religion. Buddha had never wished to create another separate "religion". He showed human life the way to enlightment. The word religion is curse for human life which divides people into different groups. Buddha never wanted to create another division among people. But this wicked world turned it into another religion. In Nepal most of the people respect Buddha as a holy human soul and his philosophy regardless of what their so called "religion" seems to be. Secondly, time ain't remains the same always, it can't be said a philosophy once got popular will be in the same popularity after thousands of year. After all world has became so wild now, decent thoughts rarely get larger numbers of followers these days. Jesus is believed to born in Israel but the population of that country is ruled by Jews.So it's pointless to argue with the relevancy of the history with present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.136.66 (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
what do you mean by recent history, 2011 or 1947? lol.. Lumbini is Nepal long before even you were born. Nepal has a history of having several autonomous states and being reunited in unitary system.Lumbini never was isolated from the greater Nepal boundary, it has always been Nepal. your argument is so incoherent that doesn't give a clear idea whether you want to stick to present or past. your references of 18th century gives a clue of past, so are you talking about freedom from the word india which is a pain in ass for south asia. ok then let's talk about independent Kashmir,sikkim,punjab etc.. and bring the existence of india to an end, if you really want to go back. if u go back to history, 1947 is the farthest you can go, before that you don't exist. so bear that in mind if you really want to go back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.248.19 (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I notice article uses both renderings. While I'm certain that both are valid, it probably would make sense if the article stuck to one.69.112.90.253 (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
For a while on wikipedia there has been a debate about weather to say Buddha was from Ancient India or Nepal. And I thought this was setteled?....And yet now it is an issue again?.....Why?...I thought we agreed that the sentence in the article should be that Buddha was from Ancient India, in what is now known as Lumbini Nepal? Isn't that the most logical way to put it? Isn't that the most fair way?....I mean Buddha was from a land that is known by scholars as Ancient India. He was born in a religion and culture that has to do with India. He was part of a caste that has to do with India. He was born right by India, in Nepal. He gained englightenment in India. He first taught in India. He lived parts of his life in India. He died in India. And yet some people want to just say that he was born in Nepal and thats it? That doesnt make sense. And to people who know nothing about this might assume oh ok so he is not Indian? He is Nepali?....Plus you also need to understand that some people think Buddha is Asian, like Japanese, or Chiense, and saying he is from Nepal, might make people think "Oh ok he is not India"....or some might think that he is Nepali, and that he is Asian, as some people in Nepal might look Asian then.....I mean......The sentence should be that Buddha is from Ancient India, in what is now known as Nepal. I thought this was settleed? So why is this still an issue? Why has the ancient India been taken out? Who decides to keep it and then take it out? 71.106.83.19 (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Did you know the Buddha’s life? When the Buddha was born, he was born Hindu. One week later his mother died so he was raised by his sister and the king. A holy man told the king that the Buddha would either be a special spiritual leader or a great king. Because of this the king never let the Buddha see suffering. At 16 years of age the Buddha married and lived a very happy life. He was always interested in what was outside the castle so one day, when the king was away, he told his servant to take him outside and he saw an old person, sick person and a dead person. From then on he wanted to know the truth about life. He left his family and friends behind him and found some teachers. They did not agree and so the Buddha went off on his own and sat under ‘the body tree’ until he was enlightened. He realised the 4 Nobel truths, also that life could be duca (which means unhappy) for a day, and the cause of this was craving —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.160.135 (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Take out the name of India from Gautam Buddha. He was born in Kapilvastu of Nepal. It is proven by Ashoka Pillar which is at Kapilvastu, it was kept there by King Ashoka, (used to be King of India) mentioning that Gautam Buddha was born in Nepal and Ashoka was the follower of Gautam Buddha. 116.197.164.246 (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Not done: not too sure what you mean. The sentence about his birth and death seems to be reliably sourced and specifies details. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Take out the name of India from Gautam Buddha's birth. He was born in Kapilvastu of Nepal. It is proven by Ashoka Pillar which is at Kapilvastu, it was kept there by King Ashoka, (used to be King of India) mentioning that Gautam Buddha was born in Nepal and Ashoka was the follower of Gautam Buddha. 116.197.164.246 (talk) 05:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Not done: as above. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
In the article is written : "The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches integrated the Buddha into their faith through St. Josaphat".
This is clearly misleading since the Budha has obviosuly never been part of Christian faith and has no influence on its canon as the sentence might also suggest.
The faiths are clearly in opposition when it comes to world's cosmology and onthology ( nature of being : See St Thomas Aquinas ).
It is stated in the source ( The Catholic Encyclopaedia ) :" The story ( St. Josaphat's) is a Christianized version of one of the legends of Buddha." and that is all .
Therefore I suggest the sentence to be re written to : in Christian churches St.Josaphat's story , is partially based in one of the Budha's legends . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.152.154 (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I have cited references supporting that buddha was born in Odisha, Wikipedia is not about a single view saying this is it. There are many evidences supporting this fact and many researchers have stated that Buddha was born in Odisha, isn't it a kind of partiality by simply removing this Please see the following references
--ସୁଭପାSubha PaUtter2me! 03:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
KAPILESWAR, Ajit Kumar Tripathy], Just because 2 sites state that it's a claim you can't completely discard all the evidences, Wikipedia is not about saying "THIS IS ONE FINE & ABSOLUTELY CORRECT HISTORICAL EVIDENCE", if there is an evident you need to state it with reliable citations, but, without any discussions you straight away removed the cited text, how fair is that? --Greg Pandatshang (talk) 12:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I have a doubt here: "Gautama.......was raised in the small kingdom or principality of Kapilavastu, ruins of which are under the present day Piprahwa between the Kapilvastu district and Siddharthnagar district divided today by the Nepalese and Indian borders.[22]"
The cited source of above statement doesn't say where he was raised. But it says:
"The Shakya Prince Siddharta Gautama, better known as the Lord Buddha, was born to Queen Mayadevi, wife of King Suddodhana, ruler of Kapilavastu, in 623 BC at the famous gardens of Lumbini, while she was on a journey from her husband's capital of Tilaurakot to her family home in Devadaha."
Source: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/666 http://www.archaeology.org/0103/newsbriefs/buddha.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdl99 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
wikipedia is a great source of information but its a shame that it still says Buddha was born in India !! On what basis is it saying that lumbini was in india ............. please correct lmbini was in nepal is in nepal and will always be in nepal........and buddha was born in nepal
14.128.12.2 (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Lord Buddha Was born in The holy land of Nepal at Lumbini. He was the prince of Kapilvastu from Shakya Dynasty. He was the son of King Suddhodhan and Maya Devi. He was married to Yashodhara and had a son named Rahul. Later on due to his mind broadening thinking and his disperate and spiritual feelings towards the human beings. He sacrified his happiness, family, royal pleasure for the search of truth of life and peace of soul. It is just the beginning. To be continued... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearless rabin (talk • contribs) 14:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
113.199.207.57 (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
please clearly indicate Buddha was born in nepal in the first paragraph
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, under the section "Depiction in arts and media" I would like to add Hermann Hess novel Siddhartha. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhartha_%28novel%29 Goldietatar (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable, as long as you point out that in that novel, the historic Buddha is not Siddhartha, but Gotama... Tessarman 08:21, 11 August 2011 (MST)
added Thank you--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's meI am dynamite 12:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Buddha was born purely in Nepal, in a Holy Place called Lumbini, not in India. I wonder why Wikipedia is relying on the false promotion and not on the fact that has been a historic approval since centuries. I request Wikipedia to correct this and lock the page so that no one can edit this way and prevent our historic property from being misused.
Thanks
Me.awash (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Just a thought, maybe in order to circumvent all these problems with the "India vs. Nepal" debate, maybe an FAQ at the top of the talk page would be prudent. --TheHande (talk) 08:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of heat about whether Buddha's birthplace should be mentioned as Nepal or India. I guess you there is a certain amount of pride involved in this. So, instead of flatly saying no, you can say:
"he was born in Ancient India (the area which is now in Nepal)" OR "he was born in modern day Nepal (a part of Ancient India)"
Why take these absolutist positions?????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.62.93.179 (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I just want to say that even after so many objections on the word "ancient India" , its not edited yet. This is really misleading and should be edit as soon as possible. As there has been other events when it had been tried to prove that the birth place of Buddha is India, many people will take this as another such attempt. As about wikipedia, it is great source of knowledge and should know its improtance and weight. So before publishing any aritcle on any topic, it should check its credibility. Macdvr (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I Agree !!! DBhuwanSurfer 22:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBSSURFER (talk • contribs)
I made the suggestion a while back (which someone vandalised) and to which I never got a reply. Why not make an FAQ to get rid of all/most of the people bugging out about the Nepal vs. India thing? --TheHande (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
In the first paragraph, it says by tradition Buddha was born in Lumbini, nepal. What does this mean? This is not relevant. There are carbon-dated proofs, that Buddha was born in Nepal . Its not some tradition fairy tale.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i am a student from Nepal.and i have always been both told and taught that lord Buddha was born in our country Nepal.as i follow Buddhism it feels bad when someone or something says Buddha was not born in our country or he was born in India.lord Buddha was born in Nepal,so he is a teacher from Nepal,not from ancient India.it really hurts our people's feelings.so on behalf of all the Nepalese people, i request you to do research and the information from "spiritual teacher from ancient India" to "spiritual teacher from Nepal."thank you...
Roshish001 (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Who said it was India? Can you give any unbiased reference? Was there India at that time? This page is leading toward false information. Better to remove this page form Wikipedia rather than giving false information, like Ancient India, Indian Subcontenients. Why dont we use Vedic Civilization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke147 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia,
In your description of Guatama Buddha it states that in some Hindu Texts (the Srimad Bhagavatam) Guatama Buddha is referred to as 'Vishnu Avatar Buddha'.
However there is firm evidence to suggest that they are two different people, with Vishnu Avatar Buddha having appeared about a thousand years before Guatama Buddha.
For verification please Read 'Beyond Nirvana' by Sri Srimad Bhaktiprajnana Keshava Goswami.
a can be found here: hpdf ttp://www.purebhakti.com/resources/ebooks-a-magazines-mainmenu-63/cat_view/53-bhakti-books-download/31-english.html
Thank you for reading,
Yours,
Radheya Mansel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.220.8 (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Siddhartha Gautam, Gautam Buddha was born in Lumbini in Nepal. Lumbini is in Nepal. Although, is an independent country. Country recognised as high mountain and brave in war is all recognition of Neplese.At the time of the Buddha's birth, the area was at or beyond the boundary of Vedic civilization,
Buddha was certainly Nepali-Aryan if not why is his name, his mother's name, father's name, his Kingdom's name and everything about him in Sanskrit/Pali/Prakrit? and it's not necessary to tell Sakyas evolved from Nepal. This is just some ludicrous fabrication to some how make Buddha Tibetan or Dalit Hero or even Indian hero.For so many children in India, they are still taught the wrong thing saying Buddha was born in India but the truth is the Ashoka pillar in the birth place of Siddhartha Gautam, Kapilbastu, Lumbini.Please use some authoritative source to substantiate this claim because this is as absurd as saying Jesus must have been Roman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsriniva (talk • contribs) 21:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Much, if not most, of this article reads like a text written for a Buddhist audience. It needs a section that separates the historical Buddha, or as much as is known of him. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus for an example of what I mean. 67.221.68.114 (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Boddha that is Siddhartha Gautam Boudha wa born in Kapilbastu which is always the part of Nepal. There is many eevidential proof about this matter in Kapilbastu, Nepal.
I agree with the writer above. I would say that if the first written records were 400 years after his death, then of course obviously the oral tradition turns it into more of a mythology for story telling purposes, but there has to be a lot of fact to it, or else no one would have carried on his teachings for 2000 years. Maybe some of the time frames of his meditations were exagerated, etc., but the principles and insights are real and historically Siddharta's. And of course over 400 years, other monks most likely added, or refined ideas, or created allegories of real events. That's the way oral traditions work, but I think arrogant pseudo-scholars should try to do something more constructive than trying to diminish the historical accuracy of the buddha mythos. Historians should try focusing on the bad things that have happened in history so as to not repeat the same mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.65.114 (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that Wikipedia needs a new article with the title: "Historical Buddha" that is similar to the article Historical Jesus. There appears to be a consensus on this. Are we ready to create this article on the "Historical Buddha"? Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
((edit semi-protected)) I propose that Buddha's personal family history be added too. He was born to a Shakya royal family in lumbini, nepal. So information regarding him being a prince should be in the 1st paragraph. At the least, it should say about him being a prince from a Shakya family. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Here you go: http://buddhism.about.com/od/lifeofthebuddha/a/buddhalife.htm http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/siddhartha.html http://www.letusreason.org/buddh2.htm
If you need more, do let me know! DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I had included the following as possible places of Buddha's birth (with references; see [1]): Lumbini, modern Nepal; Kapilavastu at Piprahwa, Uttar Pradesh, modern India or Kapileswara, Odisha, modern India.
However, my edit was reverted asking me to use the talk page. I agree that Lumbini is the most popular of the list; but it is not academically unequivocally agreed upon. An encyclopedic article need to show from all points of view, not just a single one. Please let me know why it was reverted. Snowcream (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
There is something severely wrong in this article. It is the consensus amongst Islamic states that those who follow the Qadiani movement (wrongly called Ahmadiyyah in this article) are non-Muslims. They have nothing to do with Islam. They are NOT a sect. Please remove that part of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.143.247 (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Without being biased we can use like-"Gautam Buddha, a spiritual teacher and founder of Buddhism was born in Lumbini of modern Nepal". I dont know why do you love the term `ancient India`? Instead It may be like-"at the time when Buddha was born Lumbini was the federal state under a powerful kingdom which now lies in India". And I want to make clear that yes, most of the Nepalese are hindus and not buddhist but that is not the controling idea that Buddha was or was not born in Nepal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke147 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
`Gautam Buddha was a spiritual teacher who founded buddhism` just is ok please remove `Ancient India`. This term never represented the Eastern Civilization and is also misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke147 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Don`t you think it is misleading that again showing controvarsy in where he was born. Everybody is convienced that he was born in Lumbini but again you write he was born in Odissa? Will it keeps the quality of Wikipedia that in the same page you write he was born in Lumbini and you also say in Orissa? You gave the reference of Ashok`s incription but there is also Ashok`s Pillar in Lumbini saying `in this land Buddha was born`. Unesco has enlisted Lumbini as a World heritage site as a birth place of Buddha. Again go to the reference number one in your page it clearly says he was born in Lumbini. Can you give me the source which says he was born in Odissa at Bhuwanshwori?133.71.121.214 (talk) 09:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke147 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the starting line completely makes a controversial statement, therefore i suggest that the sentence should be limited to ...was born in Lumbhini. I hope the correction will be made as soon as possible, as its better to have limited information than to have misleading information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.244.99.45 (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
This whole India vs. Nepal discussion is getting a bit silly (IMHO) -- the modern boundaries of India and Nepal are the result of (British) colonialism, and the fact that the low-lying areas ("Terai"), including the Lumbini area happen to be part of Nepal now, was just a reward by the Brits for Nepal's help during the 1857 Indian uprising (look it up, e.g. on Wikipedia ;-) ), rather than a reflection that that area is culturally particularly Nepalese. The Terai is culturally much more akin to the neighboring areas in today's India than, say, the Kathmandu Valley or Mustang. How about "Ancient Hindustan" if "Ancient India" is objectionable to modern (nationalist) Nepalese, and "Modern Nepal" is objectionable to modern (nationalist) Indians. (Tessarman) 12:45, 24 August 2011 (MST)
I have edited the sentence to present day Nepal. This seems to be agreeable by all parties. if not please give your reasons. --DBhuwanSurfer 21:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBSSURFER (talk • contribs)
So what gives anyone the right then to say he was from ancient India. Based on your own argument, Nepal didnt exist when he was alive, but what makes you think ancient india existed when he was alive? ancient india is not a country, neither it is suitable to use it here nor there is any proof that India was unified at that time. And yes, he did spend his life in Nepal. Check your history books. I did not expect such weak arguments from a veteran editor! changing back to ancient india does not improve the article any way. How about you give the exact birth place "Lumbini" instead of this ancient India modern nepal issue? show some courage please. --DBhuwanSurfer 17:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBSSURFER (talk • contribs)
Sudo reverting edits from personal point of view does not help. And yes, Buddha spent his life in nepal mostly not in India. Please check history. It does not suit a veteran editor to put his point of view in an article. and also stop telling everyone talking here as nepalese POV. This is wrong! DBhuwanSurfer 22:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBSSURFER (talk • contribs)
Now, I agree with the Indian subcontinent word too. Saying Ancient India would have been totally wrong though. It is because of this very fact: This word 'ancient' if used for a city/ country should mean that that nation or city existed. For instance, ancient rome existed and it was a state, but not ancient india!DBhuwanSurfer 16:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBSSURFER (talk • contribs)