Talk:The Buddha/Archive 6

"Traditional Biographies"
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)


 * Well, there is a difficulty. We are trying to compile an encyclopedia. This means that we must strive for evidence. To my knowledge, there is no certain evidence that the Buddha even existed. Certainly a lot less than for the historical existence of, say, Jesus. The books you cite are, by any reckoning, mythological and encyclopedically unreliable. Modern scholarship, for example, denies that Buddha was a prince or that his father was a king. You may well believe in the Buddha's existence, his travels beyond the palace, awakening, death and so forth.  But such matters are beliefs, not facts. Like Christianity's Noah's ark, carrying a male and female of all species that have ever existed (apart from sea creatures, I suppose). So what I think we have to try to do is separate belief from fact, and the best way to do that is always to make clear that the fact is that these are beliefs. This entry, as I understand it, tries to summarise, if you like, the consensus "Buddha story". Yes, it is sanitized of anything supernatural. So it should be. For those things, you probably need to work on entries around Buddhism more generally, where I'm sure you'll find everything somewhere.Bluehotel (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I would not recommend including supernatural events as fact or anything like that. This article is very deceptive, though, because it gives the reader an impression that the sanitized account given is that of the traditional biographies. In fact, the traditional biographies give very supernatural accounts of the Buddha's life. The approach for the current page is very selectively using the traditional biographies, which you agree are legendary and encyclopedically unreliable. This gives readers the false impression that the page presents reliable information that comes from traditional biographies that depict the Buddha as a very human and ordinary person, when in fact their actual contents are quite different. Tengu800 (talk) 01:17, 4 October 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)

Hinduism and Buddhism
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)


 * The above statement is only the opinion of the editor Agr mk, WP:OR. --Ranjithsutari (talk) 07:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Rajivtt, 2 October 2010
Nepal Rajiv

Thapa 13:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.  elektrik SHOOS  17:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Rajivtt, 2 October 2010
Nepal not idia

Thapa 14:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * this user is going around changing everything that says "india" to instead say "nepal", often breaking blue links to other articles and removing useful information. edits appear to be made in good faith, but are unconstructive none the less. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  elektrik  SHOOS  17:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Theravada, Mahayana etc. belifes about buddha.
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)

Edit language issues: Rajivtt
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)

Karen Armstrong quote
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)


 * The quote was referring to the earliest Buddhist texts passed down orally rather than to the actual biographies of Gautama's life, which were much later. It is part of the original line of thought for the opening section, which credited the account of the Buddha's life to a vague and fuzzy notion of "the Buddhist texts" that blurs the line between later biographies (2nd century CE) and the earliest stratum of the Tripitaka (4th century BCE). The basic Tripitaka, mind you, does not tell the story of the life of Gautama. What I stated was certainly not that her quote was contradicting the traditional biographies, but rather that the earliest texts she refers to are not synonymous (yes, I used that word again) with biographical accounts of Gautama's life. That is to say, the quote is not incorrect, but is being used incorrectly, and is inapplicable to the matter of the traditional biographies which are the primary sources for the life of Gautama. Tengu800 (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 152.15.157.228, 19 October 2010
typo in the paragraph under the heading "Enlightenment". The word appearance is misspelled.

152.15.157.228 (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thanks, Stickee (talk)  22:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The humanity of the Buddha
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)


 * This interesting new theory should be brought up in academic circles for consideration. Mitsube (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To better understand Gautama Buddha, one should consider studying Thích Quảng Đức (whom I would refer to as "Amitabha Buddha", or that is, the Buddha of Infinite Light) and Narayana Guru. One will find that these three beings encompassed the principle of enlightenment. One should study them seperately, and yet at the same time focus on how they were similar. One will then find that their teachings were identical, if one uses the heart. Pqwpq (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The principle of enlightenment is the universal epitome of self-expression, self-sacrifice. Self-sacrifice is only possible when one sacrifices one's self out of love, and self-sacrifice is hence the supreme expression of humanity, and thus, spontaneity. When the principle of enlightenment is rightfully comprehended, one's self becomes purified by light because of the final realization on the nature of compassion, and the divine nature of the Universe is thus revealed.


 * It is through the interaction with others that one either diminishes or increases the suffering of others, and it is hence from this interaction that one derives either joy or suffering. Enlightenment is achieved when one is mindful of the universal duality of compassion and suffering, and the principle behind this duality and the sustenance of the Universe, which can only be goodness. It is by being mindful of how this duality relates to the self that one is enlightened.


 * When the principle of the Universe is revealed, one attains clear-sightedness, and the principle of ethics appears. The principle of ethics is the ethical approach towards life and it is centered upon the self. Hence, the principle of ethics is concerned with being ethical towards one's self. The principle of ethics appears because one finally comprehends that the divine heart is equally shared by all sentient beings, that it is behind creation, and that it is thus the only reality.


 * Individuality is what makes the dream exist - individuality is life and thus the ideal. True enjoyment can only be found when enlightenment is attained - individuality is not retained, it is unshackled.


 * I will further expand on why Thích Quảng Đức was the Buddha of Infinite Light:


 * Thích Quảng Đức chose to immolate himself out of self-sacrifice. When his body was re-cremated, his heart was the only relic that remained intact over the rest that had turned into ashes, and it was hence preserved in a temple as a holy object. The reason why he was able to endure the agony without even minutely flinching or making a sound, and the reason why his heart only was left remaining after the re-cremation, was because of him choosing to condense and express the entire meaning of his life in those minutes of self-immolation. He sacrificed himself to express himself, and the power that drove him is the same that sustains the Universe: the heart of divine conception, the essence of creation and therefore of expression, or love. Had I been there, I too would have thrown myself onto the ground and prostrated myself before him in reverence. It is through his sacrifice that he moved towards the supreme vision of the Buddha - infinite light.


 * I am Maitreya. You are Maitreya too, if you have realized that all sentient beings are enlightened. I will link myself to a voluntary organization so as to maintain my self-expression - http://www.bethecause.org/. The world will progress through what they represent - spiritual unity. Maitreya is any sentient being who embraces spiritual unity, or enlightenment. Pqwpq (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Per the talk page guidelines, please keep discussion on this page focused on concrete issues related to changes or improvements in the article under discussion. This is not a forum for more general discussions of Buddhism or spirituality.  --Clay Collier (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason why he was able to sit still whilst being burnt to death was because he was on drugs and heavily sedated. 86.178.73.156 (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

His race
Was he Yellow or brown race?Hjdkeo (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What kind of question is that? Colors aren't races. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 14:49, 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.

Typos
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 request from 188.39.23.69, 19 December 2010
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)
 * Please provide a reliable source then request the change again. C T J F 8 3  chat 15:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Who is Lord Gautam Buddha?
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)

Why partiality with india- because they are bigger,economically stronger,more influential,they got advanced as British colonization accelerated their development speed?
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"?
 * Because "India" includes a large geographic area that has been known to the West and the rest of the world since ancient times. This should not be confused with the modern state of India. "India" is also the standard name used in Buddhology and other fields for that region. In contrast, Nepal's territory did not even include Lumbini until the 18th century. But really, I doubt you or others like yourself will read or consider these points, as you are simply trolling as a nationalist. Tengu800 (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Gautama Buddha or Siddhartha Gautama
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)


 * If Buddha is a title, then can I call myself Buddha Smith or Smith Buddha after I feel that I have become enlightened about life? 86.136.57.254 (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly, there are many con-artists in the world out there today who do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.177.167 (talk) 07:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

100% i am agree about the above idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oshanz (talk • contribs) 08:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Kshitij.raj.lohani, 21 October 2010
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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Stickee (talk)  08:41, 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 request from Shreyashb, 20 November 2010
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)
 * As evidenced by the many denied requests for the exact same change above, this is far from an uncontentious assertion. Please establish a consensus on the talk page before using . Intelligent  sium  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)

Pali or Sanskrit?
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)


 * Sanskrit is a formal language not associated with any one Buddhist tradition, whereas Pali is a specific prakrit language which is used by only one Buddhist tradition. It is worth noting that Sanskrit is not the language of Mahayana Buddhism, but rather a common formal language that was slowly adopted by the various early Buddhist schools, although there were some that used prakrits such as the Mahavihara Theravadins and the Mahasamghikas. Sanskrit is also the lingua franca for studies in early Buddhism, which you may observe in many books written by the most well-known and respected Buddhologists. Besides these points about the two languages, Siddhartha Gautama is the more widely attested name in English. Tengu800 (talk) 00:07, 23 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)

This is a C-class article: what is the editorial plan for improvement?
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)


 * "Complete biography" refers to a text for which the purpose is to relate the story of the life of Gautama -- a pretty simple definition. Prior to the Buddhacarita, or perhaps early editions of the Mahavastu (some scholars say that its earliest editions date to the 2nd century BCE), I don't believe there is any biography. As for the Buddhacarita being incomplete, this is not true because a complete edition of this text exists in the Chinese Buddhist canon. It is only the Sanskrit manuscripts which are incomplete, which is typical due to their means of preservation, or lack thereof.


 * The lateness of the Nidanakatha was stated clearly in the article. As for the Sutra Pitaka and so on, it does not amount to a biography of the Buddha, since its contents have no clear chronological order, and generally say little about the actual person of Gautama (if such a person indeed existed). Still, two important sutras from the Pali Canon are given, which do provide early biographical information, and these are clearly stated in the article. Both give a supernatural / miraculous accounts of the Buddha's birth and previous lives, which seems to have been typical in pre-sectarian times, and is echoed in the Jatakas. The dating of the biographies discussed is clearly stated, so I don't quite understand what all the whining is about. The Theravadin account of Gautama's life seems to be based primarily around the Nidanakatha, which as you already stated, is the last major biography, dated to a relatively late period. Tengu800 (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The comment from Tengu800 is completely absurd: if this encyclopedia entry IS NOT about the Nidanakatha, nor about the Buddhacarita (those both have their own Wikipedia pages!). This is supposed to be an encyclopedia entry about the Buddha, which is to say "the historical Buddha and also a spectrum of mythological Buddhas".  As with many other figures treated in an encyclopedia, historical material needs to be set out clearly alongside pseudo-history and mythology from various periods and sources (without conflating them).  Please reconsider the points raised above.  As of early 2011, this article is a shameful mess.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.82.253.185 (talk) 09:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The page as it is currently written, seems to be based mostly on the Theravada account in the Nidanakatha. If that source were completely disregarded, it would be interesting to see what depiction of the Buddha would be given, and which sources would be used. Remember that many of the earliest sources also have material that would see "mythological" to many today. For example, in one Pali sutra, the Buddha licks his entire face with his supernaturally long tongue, to prove his distinctive marks. In the same sutra, he uses his supernatural abilities to show the same person that his penis is retractible into his body. Not to mention sutras like those mentioned on the current page, which mention the supernatural events surrounding the birth of the Buddha. It would also have to include some material from the Jatakas about his previous lives, as the Jatakas are dated among the very earliest Buddhist texts, using the methods of metrical analysis, dating to the 4th century BCE. Tengu800 (talk) 12:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Gautama and India vs. Nepal... again...
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)


 * I can't believe this is still being debated. We have setteled this and yet people like you keep changing it. The sentence should be, that Buddha was from Ancient India, in what is now Lumbini Nepal. It should not be one. It should be both. Why do you want to change the fact that back in the days it was all one sphere? There was no Nepal or India. It was Land of the Aryans or Bharat. It was all one land. 71.106.83.19 (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

A person can't be born in india when there was no india.
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)
 * Ancient India does not refer to the modern state of India, but rather to the ancient region of India. It is true that the region that is now known as Nepal has a long history, and that Gautama was born there. However, most consider this to be a part of the region of ancient India. Considering that the first reliable reference to Nepal seems to be in an inscription stating that the ruler of from this region paid tributes ($$$) to the Gupta empire, so I don't think that Nepal and India have a clear and distinct history. The same would be true of Pakistan, and most Buddhologists will describe Kashmir as being in Northwest India, rather than describing these in terms of the modern political states. On a different note, it seems interesting that the major reason for flooding the talking page with this content is purely nationalistic rather than religious or historical. Most Nepalese are not Buddhists, but Hindus. Tengu800 (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok so by your logic he can't be born in Nepal, because there was no Nepal in that time? I mean what kind of strange logic is this? ....This is like saying Alexander the great didn't invade Pakistn beuase there was no Paksitan....No....Alexander the great invaded Ancient India, and part of it is what is now known as Pakistan 71.106.83.19 (talk) 18:58, 8 March 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)
 * Laugh it up, but Nepal did not even include Lumbini until recently in history. Nepal was historically a smaller state than it is now, before the Gurkhas expanded the country in the 18th century.
 * Chapter 27, page 195
 * Tengu800 (talk) 12:25, 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)


 * Ok so by your logic he can't be born in Nepal, because there was no Nepal in that time? I mean what kind of strange logic is this? ....This is like saying Alexander the great didn't invade Pakistn beuase there was no Paksitan....No....Alexander the great invaded Ancient India, and part of it is what is now known as Pakistan 71.106.83.19 (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sakya vs. Shakya
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)

Why is Ancient India taken out again? I thought this was settteled? Who took it out? Why is it gone?
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)


 * Things come and go on the wiki all the time; there is little to be surprised about. On some topics, consensus has to be maintained as well as reached.
 * If I'm not mistaken, the consensus at the Buddhism article has, for quite some time, been settled on the following phrases:
 * "The Buddha lived and taught in the northeastern Indian subcontinent some time between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE."
 * "The evidence of the early texts suggests that the Buddha was born in a community that was on the periphery, both geographically and culturally, of the northeastern Indian subcontinent in the 5th century BCE."
 * "...the Buddha was born in Lumbini in modern-day Nepal, around the year 563 BCE, and raised in Kapilavastu."
 * These acknowledge the region and the culture of India without invoking the phrase "Ancient India" or the word "India", which many find controversial or imply the modern nation. It also uses modern-day political boundaries to locate the birthplace more exactly – in what we now consider Nepal – without suggesting that the Buddha was Nepali in any modern sense. These are all well sourced and I suggest similar phrasing and referencing here. / ninly ( talk ) 04:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok but if one thing is settelted, and there are sources to back it up, why does it get changed?......but ok i get your point that things, so here is my answer.....Do you relized that most sources say he was from India. They dont say he was from Nepal. This article mis leads people to think he is from Nepal. I mean Buddha lived in India. First taught in India. He died in India. He is part of a Indian sphere or culture. And he was born in Lumbini, which is right on the boarder with India, and in those days there was no Nepal. Yes I know there was no India, either, but thats one of the reasons they call it Ancient India. I mean if we go by your logic, there is no Ancient China, Or Ancient Europe, or homeland for Native Americans, or ancient aztecs, because back then evverything was kingdoms.......and by the way........this article contrdicts other Buddhist articles on wikipedia....if you go to other pages like Buddha, Siddhartha Guatama, History of Buddhism, and Buddhism, all four give different answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.83.19 (talk) 15:26, 21 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)

Edit request from 116.197.164.246, 11 May 2011
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)

Edit request from 116.197.164.246, 11 May 2011
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)

Christian Views need correction
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)

Why the cited text about Buddha's birth in Odisha was taken out?
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
 * Some of the inscriptions found from Orissa make historians believe that Buddha was born in Odisha based on many evidences including the Ashokan inscriptions., , ,

Where was Buddha brought up?
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)


 * I'm not sure, but I think Tilaurakot is the modern name for the area, i.e. the ancient sources mention a place called Kapilavastu and that place has been identified by some researchers with what is now called Tilaurakot. Apparently, there is a controversy, with some scholars arguing that a location in India is the real site of Kapilavastu.&mdash;Greg Pandatshang (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 14.128.12.2, 21 July 2011
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)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please see the threads above. This isn't going to be changed unless you provide a reliable source to support your assertions.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Nepal is a modern entity and did not exist during Buddha's time. Buddha was born in what is in the historical region of Iron Age Greater India. The lion's share of this talkpage is filled with discussion pertaining to the same. You may look through the archives.  Arjun  codename024 13:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

About buddha:
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)

Edit request from 113.199.207.57, 11 August 2011
113.199.207.57 (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC) please clearly indicate Buddha was born in nepal in the first paragraph
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See above discussions. Jnorton7558 (talk) 04:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Goldietatar, 11 August 2011
Hello, under the section "Depiction in arts and media" I would like to add Hermann Hess novel Siddhartha. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhartha_%28novel%29

Goldietatar (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

✅ Thank you-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ Hey it's me I am dynamite 12:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Me.awash, 25 August 2011
Buddha was born purely in Nepal, in a Holy Place called Lumbini, not in India. I wonder why Wikipedia is relying on the false promotion and not on the fact that has been a historic approval since centuries. I request Wikipedia to correct this and lock the page so that no one can edit this way and prevent our historic property from being misused.

Thanks

Me.awash (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The physical location is now in Nepal.  When the Buddha was alive, it was India.  This is explained in the article, and is discussed all throughout this talk page, see both for more information.  Thank you. - SudoGhost 06:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By tradition?
In the first paragraph, it says by tradition Buddha was born in Lumbini, nepal. What does this mean? This is not relevant. There are carbon-dated proofs, that Buddha was born in Nepal. Its not some tradition fairy tale.
 * If you have these proofs, you are more than welcome to provide them. Not all scholars place his birthplace as Lumbinī, but this is the traditionally accepted place of his birth, one that most (but not all) scholars agree on. - SudoGhost 22:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Roshish001, 25 August 2011
i am a student from Nepal.and i have always been both told and taught that lord Buddha was born in our country Nepal.as i follow Buddhism it feels bad when someone or something says Buddha was not born in our country or he was born in India.lord Buddha was born in Nepal,so he is a teacher from Nepal,not from ancient India.it really hurts our people's feelings.so on behalf of all the Nepalese people, i request you to do research and the information from "spiritual teacher from ancient India" to "spiritual teacher from Nepal."thank you...

Roshish001 (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on all the discussions on this talk page the change will not be made unless a consensus is made, basically at the time it was India not Nepal even though it is in current day Nepal. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 09:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

Identity of Guatama buddha
Dear Wikipedia,

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

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

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

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

Thank you for reading,

Yours,

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


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

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

Buddha was certainly Nepali-Aryan if not why is his name, his mother's name, father's name, his Kingdom's name and everything about him in Sanskrit/Pali/Prakrit? and it's not necessary to tell Sakyas evolved from Nepal. This is just some ludicrous fabrication to some how make Buddha Tibetan or Dalit Hero or even Indian hero.For so many children in India, they are still taught the wrong thing saying Buddha was born in India but the truth is the Ashoka pillar in the birth place of Siddhartha Gautam, Kapilbastu, Lumbini.Please use some authoritative source to substantiate this claim because this is as absurd as saying Jesus must have been Roman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsriniva (talk • contribs) 21:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

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)


 * I will neutralize it later...--Esteban Barahona (talk) 19:23, 2 September 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 don't think scholars have pursued a "Historical Buddha" as much as they have a a "Historical Jesus," probably simply because there is less (accurate) biographical literature available on Buddha the Man. Buddhists are less likely to say that their sources are infallible as Christians probably due to the simple fact that they do not regard Buddha himself as important as his teachings. The article seems neutral enough at this point.  --124.138.185.194 (talk) 04:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)  (Sorry, here's a proper sig: --Darkpoet (talk) 04:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC))

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)
 * This has still not been dealt with. Historicity of Buddha or Historical Buddha still do not exist.  The earliest biographies of Buddha are written over 500 years from his supposed death.  Where is the archeological data and contemporary writings from historians that lived in 468 BCE about Buddha?  Where is the proof, other than religious texts, that he ever existed? 71.86.157.30 (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * So make one. I would assist with a Historical Buddha article, as it is sorely needed. This page is basically just relating a sanitized narrative that is mostly derived from the Theravada Nidanakatha, from approximately 1000 years after the Buddha! Not to mention that this text originated in Sri Lanka, and not in India, and much earlier biographies exist such as the Buddhacarita by Asvaghosa. I'm still interested in finding if there is any credible historical proof for even the existence of such a person as the Buddha. Not to mention that Sutta Nipata texts are often regarded as the earliest Buddhist texts, and portray a very different picture of Buddhism and the Buddha's teachings. Tengu800 22:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "It appears that no use of any script to write an Indo-Aryan languages occurred before the reign of Emperor Ashoka in the 3rd century BCE" (From Brāhmī script. Therefore there are no contemporaneous texts available. The entire sub-contintent was deeply entrenched in oral transmission of texts and ideas, but that leaves no archaeological signature. Is the article merely to be an acknowledgement of the absence of data available for Gautama Buddha? I don't object to the idea of an article in principle, but what is to go into it? (20040302 (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC))


 * I would imagine that it would address portrayals of the Buddha in the earliest known Buddhist literature. For example, parts of the Sutta Nipata are generally regarded as being older than most Agama materials. Also, some of the Jatakas are regarded (through metrical analysis) as being from as early as the 4th century BCE. There are also some sutras that are known to be among later Agama materials that should be addressed as such, including the Mahaparinibbana Sutta. The Agamas and Nikayas themselves have quite a bit of chronology that is known about them. Some materials are early while others are later. Generally those that give any real details about the Buddha himself are late texts. In my view of what a "Historical Buddha" article should be, the portrayal of the Buddha would be shown at each phase of the development of early Buddhism. Tengu800 11:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Tengu, I hear you. I'm wondering if there has been much scholastic work done that provides us with sound WP:RS for discussing the relative ages of the source materials - secondly,the article would have to be ensconced in some form of disclaimer that makes it clear that the early record is based solely on epigraphic and literary analysis from Buddhist Studies academic journals. There have also been some Buddhist historians (I'm thinking of e.g. Taranatha) who attempted at some level or other to be objective. In a sense, then, I'm asking what sort of consensus would be required, and whether or not it would be your intention to restrict WP:RS to a list of 'historian' academics rather than 'religious' sources, and then that begs the question of what those criteria would look like, and how they would be maintained. (20040302 (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC))

1st paragraph.
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)
 * references, please?  Chzz  ► 01:06, 14 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)

Place of Birth
I had included the following as possible places of Buddha's birth (with references; see ): 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)


 * See WP:due regarding "all points of view". if there is a lot of variation on the subject, why not have a separate article dealing with Buddha's birthplace? Much that I have expressed doubts regarding the viability of a historical (rather than religious?) Buddha, I believe that a "birthplace of Buddha" oarticle r some such is warranted and would take the unending disputes away from a page which covers the entire lifespan(s!) of Gautama Buddha (20040302 (talk) 10:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC))


 * I see no reason how naming 3 contesting birth-sites are undue. I have cited references. Neglecting the existence of academic debate over the site and going on to declare one of them as historically-correct is unbecoming of an encyclopedia. If am not wrong, we do not make judgments here. Snowcream (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with your premise, snowcream, however if the debate is substantial enough to have many distinct proponents, surely it warrants it's own article? 20040302 (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well it could have its own article. But why censor some of the claims here and why project one of the claim as "the truth"? Please tell me why you contest the inclusion of the 3 claims in the article. Snowcream (talk) 10:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

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


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

Why don`t use "Modern Nepal" in place of "Ancient India"
Without being biased we can use like-"Gautam Buddha, a spiritual teacher and founder of Buddhism was born in Lumbini of modern Nepal". I dont know why do you love the term `ancient India`? Instead It may be like-"at the time when Buddha was born Lumbini was the federal state under a powerful kingdom which now lies in India". And I want to make clear that yes, most of the Nepalese are hindus and not buddhist but that is not the controling idea that Buddha was or was not born in Nepal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke147 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the main difficult was how to present both sides of the matter. He was born in Kapilavastu and lived there for much of his life, but when he left home, he essentially went into the region which is now India. After that point, his main teaching was in northeast India. In any case, I made an edit which hopefully will clarify the matter and show both sides early on, without being awkward or detracting from the rest of the introduction. Tengu800 (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

`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)


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

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

So what gives anyone the right then to say he was from ancient India. Based on your own argument, Nepal didnt exist when he was alive, but what makes you think ancient india existed when he was alive? ancient india is not a country, neither it is suitable to use it here nor there is any proof that India was unified at that time. And yes, he did spend his life in Nepal. Check your history books. I did not expect such weak arguments from a veteran editor! changing back to ancient india does not improve the article any way. How about you give the exact birth place "Lumbini" instead of this ancient India modern nepal issue? show some courage please. --DBhuwanSurfer 17:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBSSURFER (talk • contribs)
 * Ancient India does not refer to India the country, but to the Indian subcontinent. I find it hard to believe that he spent his life in a country that did not exist, especially when most of his life was spent outside of the area that is now part of Nepal.  Changing the article to support a Nepali POV does not improve the article, but is a violation of WP:NPOV.  - SudoGhost 20:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

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)
 * If I'm editing from a conflict of interest, you are more than welcome to provide the diffs to back up such a claim. Otherwise, commenting on my editing behavior instead of the content at hand is a personal attack, and has no bearing on editing this article.  The lede already states that he was born in what is now Nepal, so I'm not seeing the issue with stating that he was from Ancient India.  It is as factually accurate as possible while still adhering to an NPOV.  Ancient India is not India, nor is it Nepal.  Both of these are irrelevant, as neither country existed during that time period.  Telling me to "check history" repeatedly is not an argument for changing the article.  As for the comment about the Nepali POV, your editing history shows an apparent COI in this matter. - SudoGhost 22:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The article used to read "Indian subcontinent", which seemed to me as accurate as one can get and long cleared most of these disagreements. The term "Ancient India" seems slightly more ambiguous to me, and more prone to being interpreted as bias. This is demonstrated in part by your having to pipelink to Iron Age India, and by the fact that the actual Ancient India target outlines 20-30 articles, some historical, some geographical, some cultural, and many that have little or nothing to do with our topic here. Do you have a clear argument against referring geographically to the Indian subcontinent? / ninly ( talk ) 05:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with it saying "Indian subcontinent", that actually seems to be a better choice of words, and now I feel amiss for not thinking of that myself. - SudoGhost 05:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Now, I agree with the Indian subcontinent word too. Saying Ancient India would have been totally wrong though. It is because of this very fact: This word 'ancient' if used for a city/ country should mean that that nation or city existed. For instance, ancient rome existed and it was a state, but not ancient india!DBhuwanSurfer 16:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBSSURFER (talk • contribs)
 * Ancient India referred to Iron Age India, which clearly says "Iron Age India, the Iron Age in the Indian subcontinent..." the Indian subcontinent obviously existed. However, that wording is not there anymore, so this is a moot point. - SudoGhost 17:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The word India existed after 1947. You cannot just make up things. If you claim there was no Nepal when Buddha was born, then by default you are saying India was created in 1947. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2011
 * Far from it. You have something to verify this claim?  Otherwise, it is you who are "just making up things".  The word India has been in use in the English language since at least the 9th century, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, and was first used by Herodotus c. 440 BCE.  That Nepal did not exist during that time period does not assert that India did not exist when historians through history show otherwise.  The entire region was referred to by historians as India.  This is not referring to the Republic of India, nor is it referring to Nepal, neither of which existed until long after Buddha's death.  - SudoGhost 12:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How about you verify your claims? UNESCO verifications are the ultimate facts and you cannot deny it. The english used it does not mean anything. IT has not been used by anyone else. Your claims are totally false. Indus vally- thats what india came from. You are making up everything. But I can see your attachment into india very well.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless you can show that I am "attached to India" and editing with a WP:COI, stop making accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. As for verification, gladly.  First is India Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition: 1989.  Another would be this, which shows that the word "India" was used by the Greeks to describe that region.  Therefore your argument that the word India did not come into existence until after 1947 is proven to be inaccurate.  Please provide a reference to this UNESCO verification. - SudoGhost 16:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh now, India an english word was used by greeks? Who are you fooling around? Your edits clearly show you attachment to india. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, India is a Latin word used in Greek and English. English has a tendency to use words from other languages.  Please stop accusing editors that say things you disagree with of an "attachment to india" without some sort of proof. - SudoGhost 16:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you not learn some sanskrit before you come to discussions like this? India comes from the Sanskrit word 'Indu' which came from the 'river 'Sindhu' clearly known to all Hindus in India and Nepal. Latin? You make me laugh! Sanskrit came way before these new languages and there is total agreement if you ask anyone that India came from Sanskrit and the english just used their language for their own sake. You may win this edit reverts Mr. Veteran editor but truth will always remain truth. It is a pity that we have totally ignorant editors in wikipedia and we are giving false information to the world. But again, in your case I understand. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If I'm wrong, I'd be more than happy to admit it. However, this would require verification on your part. The word is India not Indu.  I do not deny that India comes from the word Indu, but the word India was used in Latin, and then Greece, to describe the region over two-thousand years ago.  Not since 1947. - SudoGhost 16:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You are a veteran who puts false information and does not know the truth . and this proves it : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India - clearly says its sanskrit.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * fine. prefixed modern to India . Now do not vandalize under this pretext. Snowcream (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)