Talk:The Buddha/Archive 8

Was he real?
Hi guys. Forgive me for asking but this article appears to be written in such a way as to assume that this guy really existed. Are there any contemporary sources which prove that? How about something written at the time of his life by a "hostile witness"... Someone who acknowledged he did exist, but did not support him. Looking at the tone of say Jesus and looking at this article it appears that the author is far more certain that Buddha was real than Jesus. 2.101.142.2 (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Buddhist Theory on Happiness
Nonattachment Buddhist theory about happiness is somewhat counterintuitive, as it stresses avoiding satisfying desires. Buddhism relates nonattachment with happiness and that it cannot be attained while in a state of want; desires must be controlled and people must remain nonattached to their surroundings (Gowan, 2003). The ideal of nonattachment is among the highest in Buddhism, which is to say that freedom from conceit, expelling of attachment, and the extinguishing of thirst should be idealized (Rāhula, 1974). Here, “thirst” includes attachment and desire for tangible pleasures and wealth, and also attachment and desire for intangible concepts, beliefs, power and opinions (Rāhula, 1974). People who are completely nonattached from both material and nonmaterial things are happy. The Dhammapada, a collection of sayings from the Buddha, states, “Come, behold, this world, how it resembles an ornamental royal chariot, in which fools flounder, but for the wise there is no attachment to it” (Rāhula, 1974).

Samvega Buddha taught that individuals with no attachment or desires experience true freedom (Rāhula, 1974), so it is important to next understand how to embark on this path. Desire derives from want or lack. The purpose of having no worldly attachments is that nonattachment results in the reduction and elimination of desires. Without attachment, there can be no desire. This idea of reducing desire is called samvega, a Pali word meaning the transition from the state of distress to a state of enlightenment and bliss (Kuspit, 2006). There are other connotations of the term samvega, as it can also denote the shocking sensation one feels when a work of art becomes a perceptual experience (Kuspit, 2006), similar to the sensation a horse feels when it is whipped (Coomaraswamy, 1943). However, in the context of Buddhist theory on happiness, samvega is the desired mental state (Brekke, 2002). It indicates the process of the transition from desire fulfillment to desire reduction through a realization that attachment to the world is futile (Brekke, 2002). Physically, the transition can be felt as awe, shock, fear, or joy and can be brought on by any physically or mentally poignant experience (Coomaraswamy, 1943). Experiencing samvega transcends irritability and leads the individual to a state of delight (Coomaraswamy, 1943). Obtaining samvega generates obtaining happiness, although samvega is not a short path. Once obtained, the individual will have conquered happiness through a disciplined lifestyle of desire reduction.

Bazleyk1 (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Buddhist Theory on Happiness
Nonattachment Buddhist theory about happiness is somewhat counterintuitive, as it stresses avoiding satisfying desires. Buddhism relates nonattachment with happiness and that it cannot be attained while in a state of want; desires must be controlled and people must remain nonattached to their surroundings (Gowan, 2003). The ideal of nonattachment is among the highest in Buddhism, which is to say that freedom from conceit, expelling of attachment, and the extinguishing of thirst should be idealized (Rāhula, 1974). Here, “thirst” includes attachment and desire for tangible pleasures and wealth, and also attachment and desire for intangible concepts, beliefs, power and opinions (Rāhula, 1974). People who are completely nonattached from both material and nonmaterial things are happy. The Dhammapada, a collection of sayings from the Buddha, states, “Come, behold, this world, how it resembles an ornamental royal chariot, in which fools flounder, but for the wise there is no attachment to it” (Rāhula, 1974).

Samvega Buddha taught that individuals with no attachment or desires experience true freedom (Rāhula, 1974), so it is important to next understand how to embark on this path. Desire derives from want or lack. The purpose of having no worldly attachments is that nonattachment results in the reduction and elimination of desires. Without attachment, there can be no desire. This idea of reducing desire is called samvega, a Pali word meaning the transition from the state of distress to a state of enlightenment and bliss (Kuspit, 2006). There are other connotations of the term samvega, as it can also denote the shocking sensation one feels when a work of art becomes a perceptual experience (Kuspit, 2006), similar to the sensation a horse feels when it is whipped (Coomaraswamy, 1943). However, in the context of Buddhist theory on happiness, samvega is the desired mental state (Brekke, 2002). It indicates the process of the transition from desire fulfillment to desire reduction through a realization that attachment to the world is futile (Brekke, 2002). Physically, the transition can be felt as awe, shock, fear, or joy and can be brought on by any physically or mentally poignant experience (Coomaraswamy, 1943). Experiencing samvega transcends irritability and leads the individual to a state of delight (Coomaraswamy, 1943). Obtaining samvega generates obtaining happiness, although samvega is not a short path. Once obtained, the individual will have conquered happiness through a disciplined lifestyle of desire reduction.

Bazleyk1 (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Buddhist Theory on Happiness
Nonattachment Buddhist theory about happiness is somewhat counterintuitive, as it stresses avoiding satisfying desires. Buddhism relates nonattachment with happiness and that it cannot be attained while in a state of want; desires must be controlled and people must remain nonattached to their surroundings (Gowan, 2003). The ideal of nonattachment is among the highest in Buddhism, which is to say that freedom from conceit, expelling of attachment, and the extinguishing of thirst should be idealized (Rāhula, 1974). Here, “thirst” includes attachment and desire for tangible pleasures and wealth, and also attachment and desire for intangible concepts, beliefs, power and opinions (Rāhula, 1974). People who are completely nonattached from both material and nonmaterial things are happy. The Dhammapada, a collection of sayings from the Buddha, states, “Come, behold, this world, how it resembles an ornamental royal chariot, in which fools flounder, but for the wise there is no attachment to it” (Rāhula, 1974).

Samvega Buddha taught that individuals with no attachment or desires experience true freedom (Rāhula, 1974), so it is important to next understand how to embark on this path. Desire derives from want or lack. The purpose of having no worldly attachments is that nonattachment results in the reduction and elimination of desires. Without attachment, there can be no desire. This idea of reducing desire is called samvega, a Pali word meaning the transition from the state of distress to a state of enlightenment and bliss (Kuspit, 2006). There are other connotations of the term samvega, as it can also denote the shocking sensation one feels when a work of art becomes a perceptual experience (Kuspit, 2006), similar to the sensation a horse feels when it is whipped (Coomaraswamy, 1943). However, in the context of Buddhist theory on happiness, samvega is the desired mental state (Brekke, 2002). It indicates the process of the transition from desire fulfillment to desire reduction through a realization that attachment to the world is futile (Brekke, 2002). Physically, the transition can be felt as awe, shock, fear, or joy and can be brought on by any physically or mentally poignant experience (Coomaraswamy, 1943). Experiencing samvega transcends irritability and leads the individual to a state of delight (Coomaraswamy, 1943). Obtaining samvega generates obtaining happiness, although samvega is not a short path. Once obtained, the individual will have conquered happiness through a disciplined lifestyle of desire reduction.

Bazleyk1 (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Nonattachment
Buddhist theory about happiness is somewhat counterintuitive, as it stresses avoiding satisfying desires. Buddhism relates nonattachment with happiness and that it cannot be attained while in a state of want; desires must be controlled and people must remain nonattached to their surroundings (Gowan, 2003). The ideal of nonattachment is among the highest in Buddhism, which is to say that freedom from conceit, expelling of attachment, and the extinguishing of thirst should be idealized (Rāhula, 1974). Here, “thirst” includes attachment and desire for tangible pleasures and wealth, and also attachment and desire for intangible concepts, beliefs, power and opinions (Rāhula, 1974). People who are completely nonattached from both material and nonmaterial things are happy. The Dhammapada, a collection of sayings from the Buddha, states, “Come, behold, this world, how it resembles an ornamental royal chariot, in which fools flounder, but for the wise there is no attachment to it” (Rāhula, 1974).

Samvega
Buddha taught that individuals with no attachment or desires experience true freedom (Rāhula, 1974), so it is important to next understand how to embark on this path. Desire derives from want or lack. The purpose of having no worldly attachments is that nonattachment results in the reduction and elimination of desires. Without attachment, there can be no desire. This idea of reducing desire is called samvega, a Pali word meaning the transition from the state of distress to a state of enlightenment and bliss (Kuspit, 2006). There are other connotations of the term samvega, as it can also denote the shocking sensation one feels when a work of art becomes a perceptual experience (Kuspit, 2006), similar to the sensation a horse feels when it is whipped (Coomaraswamy, 1943). However, in the context of Buddhist theory on happiness, samvega is the desired mental state (Brekke, 2002). It indicates the process of the transition from desire fulfillment to desire reduction through a realization that attachment to the world is futile (Brekke, 2002). Physically, the transition can be felt as awe, shock, fear, or joy and can be brought on by any physically or mentally poignant experience (Coomaraswamy, 1943). Experiencing samvega transcends irritability and leads the individual to a state of delight (Coomaraswamy, 1943). Obtaining samvega generates obtaining happiness, although samvega is not a short path. Once obtained, the individual will have conquered happiness through a disciplined lifestyle of desire reduction.

Bazleyk1 (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

there is miss infomation in here... HE WAS NOT THE 1st enlightened. Sorry.
Gotama was not the 1st enlightened... he even says so him self... if you read his writings he said and said daily in his teachings and chants that "I pay homage to all the buddahs before me and all the buddahs who will come after me." Dhamma was never meant to be divided into sects. Suffering is Universal so the answer to it must also be universal his teachings and writings state this clearly... what enlightened human being would ever make something into a sect and not something that everyone and anyone could use... the belief that he was the 1st is a one started by a sect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.142.240 (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you may have misread the article, unless I'm just missing something. The article says "The word Buddha is a title for the first awakened being in an era", I'm not seeing anything about him being "the first enlightened" individual. - SudoGhost 05:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Buddism is a SECT Dhamma is the teaching of the Buddha.
I'm sorry but Buddism is a sect...it that was created from the teachings of budda... he never wanted sects created in his name... Dhamma was his teaching and dhamma taught in its pure form is universal. Dhamma must remain universal because suffering is universal. Suffering and Misery is not only belonging to one perticular religion, county or sect. What enlighted person would have a religion or a sect?? None and not Buddah thats for sure. I urge you to look up Pure Dhamma and the meditation technique of Vipassna(dealing with fealing you sensations because sensation is the root cause o our misery... root of desire comes from the physical bodily sensations and this was the buddahs teachings... Learn to pay attention to your sensations and not react to them to remain equinimous. Look up Pure Dhamma and the teachings or SN Goenka or any other teacher who has read and stuied Pali the buddahs native tounge and find this truth for your self. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.142.240 (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect information in "Depiction in arts and media"
The book Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse is not about the Buddha, but rather it is a story about a man named Siddhartha who lived during the time of the Buddha. The belief that Siddhartha is the story of the Buddha's young life is a common misconception. This should be omitted to ensure that people do not believe the book Siddhartha is a narrative of the Buddha's life.

Jnberkshire (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed it to avoid any sort of confusion on that point. - SudoGhost 22:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

A few prevailing errors
Hello folks. I would like to draw your collective attention to a longstanding misconception in this article regarding the earliest sources for the life of the Buddha. The earliest source for the Buddha's life is the Pali Canon which precedes the sources currently mentioned by around three hundred years. An entire biography has been composed on the Buddha's life using first person statements drawn from the sutta pitaka. I refer to 'The Life of The Buddha' by Bhikkhu Nanamoli. This is a widely used and quoted source. Please will someone with an account correct this state of affairs.


 * Buddha was born to Kshatriya tribe
 * Real name was Siddharth
 * He was honest,intelligent and generous person
 * He left his family,palace and all his belongings to his son
 * He meditated under a palm tree and found "Buddhism".
 * He found people had problems because of their greed.They do wrong things to get more things like others.
 * His teachings were spread far away places.
 * Died at an age of 80 at Parnivana stage in Nepal.
 * His last meal will be the source of the greatest merit as it was his last meal.


 * Addition by Virlikar:
 * "I pay homage to all the buddahs before me and all the buddahs who will come after me." This is the writings of the mahayanis, the bramhins who became Buddhist monks to spread 'awatarwad' in the true Buddhism and misinterrupt it, to minimise the effect of teachings of Buddhism. So that the Bramanism propogated Chaturvarnism should be inculcated in the minds of the people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virlikar (talk • contribs) 14:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The new true perspective in the history, about The Buddha becoming 'Parivrajaka'
According to the rule prevailing in the Sakya community, all the youths attaining age 20, should become the member of the 'Sakya Sangh'. So at the age of 20 Siddartha was enrolled in the 'Sakya Sangha'. Accordingly he became elligible in paeticipating in the decisions made by 'Sangh'. Before becoming 'parivrajaka', there was quarrel on the issue of using the water of the river Rohini, which was flowing at the border of Sakya and Koliya Ganrajya. As a remady to this quarrel, 'Sangh' decided to open the war against the Koliyas. But Siddartha was against the war. He suggested to open discussion with the Koliyas to agree on some remady. This was against the decision of the 'Sangh'. So as siddartha goes against the decision of 'Sangh', he has to undergo the panishment, ordered by 'Sangh'. The panishment was 1) to hold the weapons against the Koliyas. or 2) to hand over all the belongings and earnings of the whole family (including fathers also) and exelled from the country or 3) to become sanyasi / parivrajak by self and leave the country. Siddartha was against the 1st and the 2nd option. So he finally decided to follow the 3rd option. Thus he became 'Parivrajaka', the Sanyasi.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virlikar (talk • contribs) 13:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggest to refer to him throughout as "Buddha"?
The studied failure to refer to the Buddha throughout by the name by which he is commonly known -- Buddha -- has a jarring and disconcerting effect. It is possible for someone unfamiliar with less-known names or doctrines to wonder if the article is indeed about the Buddha.
 * "Buddha" is a title in the same way that "teacher" is a title. Someone may be referred to as "Teacher", but that is not a proper name nor specific enough to differentiate the individual from other teachers. Remember that even according to the Theravada school, there have been other buddhas (e.g. List of the twenty-eight Buddhas). Tengu800 15:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

"Today" - "present-day"
I would like to add that please omit the word "today" in the phrase "today in Nepal" under Gautam Buddha's biography while describing his birthplace. It was always in Nepal. Do you have any references that Lumbini was under any other country that time? Everywhere you need the references, but why are not you giving any citations there? Do you mean that Mahatma Gandhi was not born in India because that time India was under British regime? Does it mean that Gandhi was born "in Gujarat, today in India?" What about Manmohan Singh, the current Indian Prime minister? He was born in....., today in India. Does it look okay? Never. The UNESCO has put the Lumbini, birthplace of Gautam Buddha under a world heritage and the UN has fully recognized that he was born in Nepal. Can those people directly claim it to the UN if they are dissatisfied with this fact? Therefore, there's no debate on the birthplace of Gautam Buddha. It's Lumbini and it's always in Nepal (NOT "today in Nepal"). Additionally, all the Buddhist people, Buddhist countries and scholars all have endorsed that he was born in Lumbini, Nepal. So,please correct the statements ASAP. We Nepalese people are feeling humiliated and very very dissatisfied by this Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.237.57.40 (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've changed "today" to "present-day". To call the area at the time of the Buddha "Nepal", as the state Nepal, would be an anachronism - unless Nepal is also a name for a geographic area, and not only a state. Compare this with "The Netherlands" as a geographic area, and "Nederland" as a state. in, say, the 14th century, "The Netherlands" did exist, comprising 17 or so small, feudal states, but "Nederland" did not exist. Greetings,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Date of Buddha's Nirvana
B.N.Narahari Achar in his essay, Some Fixed points in the chronology of Bharata, included in the book, Astronomical Dating of Events and Select Vignettes from Indian History (XI Buddha’s date page 71-5) writes that as per Samutta Nikaya, Part I, Sugatha-Vagga, Book II, Chapter I, Devaputta-samyuttam, Sutas 9 and 10 in the year when Gautama Buddha died there was Winter Solstice, there was a Lunar Eclipse followed by a Solar Eclipse before Buddha’s demise on a Visakha Purnima day. He concludes that the calculations done by Prof. Sengupta fixing 544 BC rather than 483 BC which former date is nearer to 560 BC in which year the two eclipses did occur is incorrect because it does not concur with the data provided by the two suttas viz SN(I.ii.1.9.3) and SN (I.ii.1.10.3) of the afore-mentioned Buddhist text. Narahari using the Planetarium Software has confirmed that on 5/1/1807 BC there was the Winter Solstice, on 26/1/1807 BC there was the Lunar Eclipse, on 10/2/1807 BC there was a Solar Eclipse and on 10/3/1807 BC it was Visakha Purnima (before which date Buddha had spent three months at Sravasti). Narahari’s scientific verification also reveals that the date of birth of Gautama Buddha given by Vedavyasa as 10/3/1887 on the assumption that Buddha lived for eighty years is also incorrect because on that day it was not Visakha Purnima. Buddha is traditionally believed to have taken birth on Visakha Purnima which Purnima occurred on 9/4/1887 but the planetary positions are not as have been worked out by Vedavyasa. I do not know Pali, and also I am not an astronomer. I simply want to know whether we can rely on the research conducted by B.N.Narahari. I have not yet come across any one either rejecting or accepting these findings.Aditya soni (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 March 2013
On the opening sentence of this article, it says Gautama Buddha was 'a spiritual teacher from the "Indian subcontinent"'. This is misleading and vague. It is a very well-known fact, supported by plethora of evidence and scholars, that Gautama Buddha was from Nepal, a country in South Asia[1][2]. Even UNESCO lists Lumbini, Nepal, as a world heritage site and birthplace of Gautama Buddha[3][4]. I understand that India tries to claim Gautama Buddha was from India, and its obvious why because its an honor to be so, and there are more than a billion population in India trying to request Wikipedia to put India in there. But, that is merely not a fact. Wikipedia shall not cater to pressure but rather facts. And the fact is Buddha was from Nepal. There is no reason to be vague about this by saying he was from 'Indian subcontinent'. This is misleading and even offensive to some degree and this is rather a big issue as Buddha is considered one of the most influential people of all time. Please revisit this issue and let this not be a blemish on Wikipedia's fine reputation. Thank you.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha#CITEREFWarder2000 (page 45) 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha#CITEREFWalsh1995 (page 20) 3. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/666 4. http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/t/the-astamahapratiharya-buddhist-pilgrimage-sites/

Rrlamichhane (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Also, I hope in fairness I added India explicitly to the explanatory note 1. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Buddha's birthplace is in present-day Nepal. Buddha himself was not born in Nepal, which didn't exist at that time, but in the Sakya-republic, as Warder states. It is an anachronism to say that the Buddha was born in Nepal.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   17:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the correction, Joshua Jonathan. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

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


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


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

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


 * I think that's because it is the subject of much more discussion with regard to Jesus. Jesus lived in a time and place that is well-documented historically. The Buddha did not. Some scholars have concluded that the historicity of Jesus is likely or unlikely, but with regard to the Buddha there's simply a dearth of evidence.&mdash;Greg Pandatshang (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Could we perhaps have a 'Historicity of Jesus' article, as there is a Historicity of Jesus article? At least a mention somewhere here about questions regarding his existence. - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

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


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

Edit request on 1 May 2013
Add Gautama Buddha to either Category:Indian yogis or Category:Yogis. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogi:

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

Also, see:

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

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


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


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


 * Also, according to page 95 of Early Buddhism and the Bhagavadgåitåa by K. N. Upadhyaya:
 * "From internal references of the Pali Nikāya themselves, we know that Buddha learnt some impersonal yogic trances from his teachers, Alara Kalama and Udaka Ramaputta... Before the attainment of enlightenment, in the course of trying different methods, Buddha is found to practise some breath-control as well... When we compare the yoga of Buddhism with the yoga described in the Yoga Sutra of Patanjali, the similarities are so striking that they hardly leave any doubt regarding the one being influenced by the other." --Ewj001 (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, according to page xi of Teachings of Buddha by Jack Kornfield:
 * Also, according to page xi of Teachings of Buddha by Jack Kornfield:
 * Also, according to page xi of Teachings of Buddha by Jack Kornfield:


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


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


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


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


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


 * Response by JJ: Feuerstein is a good writer, but it seems to me that he has a bias toward propagating yoga. He's more like a primary source than a secondary source.
 * Reagrding the objections against qualifying the Buddha as a yogin: he rejected severe austerities. But... yoga-oractices are a part of Buddhism.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * According to page 77 of Buddha by Karen Armstrong:


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


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

Dates

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

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

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

Edit request on 11 May 2013
1 upon hearing the dream,the wise men of the kingdom predicted the queen would give birth to a son who would become a great king or leave and become a

72.227.128.203 (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format.- Camyoung54  talk  00:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Concerning primary sources
Regarding: 18:28, 11 June 2013‎ Joshua Jonathan (talk | contribs) undoing quotes from primary sources. You have to do your research before you undo contributions based on PRIMARY sources from the Pali canon or you end up looking grossly uninformed. The Itivittika was one of the earliest texts in Buddhism and even pre-dates the Pali Nikayas, and the quote from Itivuttika 22, Group of Ones, is IDENTICAL to the language used in the Anguttara Nikaya 7.59 from the Māpuññabhāyi Sutta. The Group of One language from the Itivittika is also identical to that found in the Chinese Agamas, removing the sectarian issue altogether. You really can't get better sourcing than that for a quote given that is attributable to the Buddha. If you personally don't like this quote, then this is your POV rather than a serious attempt to contribute to this article. Wiki is not the place to air your POV about Buddhism but to describe the subject as accurately as possible using primary sources if available, and then secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbrahmana (talk • contribs)
 * It's actually the other way around; primary sources are only used with care, and secondary sources are preferred. The header change in your edit is another reason (though minor) why it was reverted; sections are not capitalized unless the header is a proper noun or title, and it is not in this case.  Given your username, it also seems extremely promotional to include a quote, presumably from your own book, in the article.  That's the kind of thing that needs to be discussed before being placed back in the article since it gives undue weight to your own opinion and appears to be a potential conflict of interest. - SudoGhost 03:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am fine with the title capitalization issue. The title should reflect the content in this section, and therefore should read: "Divine nature in traditional depictions". One of these traditional depictions of the Buddha's divine nature is from the discourses actually given from the Buddha in the quotes from the Itivuttika and Anguttara Nikaya.  These Pali canon primary sources are deemed acceptable everywhere else on Wiki on the topic of Buddhism, including from the quote from Andrew Skilton's book above the quote I provided, which is from the Majjhima Nikaya (MN).  The practice of quoting a published author and then supporting it further with primary sources is sound editing, and eliminates the bias concern on the part of the author, as anyone can simply look up the primary source themselves and determine whether the quote is accurate.  I did provide a link to Access to Insight for the Itivuttika 22, Group of Ones, language which is nearly identical to what was provided in this article.  I also cited the Pali Text Society (PTS) translation from Pali to English for the Anguttara Nikaya 7.59 supporting source material from the Māpuññabhāyi Sutta.  So far from any 'personal bias' concerning the contribution I have made, the addition provided is as close as we can come to the actual words from the historical Buddha concerning his divinity claims.  The addition should therefore be allowed, as it gives the reader a more authentic account of what the Buddha thought about his own divinity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbrahmana (talk • contribs) 04:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment by JJ - Dear Mbrahmana, there are five problems with your edit:
 * As sudoGhost wrote, Wikipedia is not based on primary sources, but on reliable secondary sources
 * Your book "Why God Became a Buddha" is not WP:RS
 * Using it as a source is indeed self-promotional
 * The section was mostly about "Divine Nature in Traditional Depictions" after your edits
 * The sutras are not reliable accounts for the exact sayings of the Buddha:
 * "While most scholars agree that there was a rough body of sacred literature (disputed) that a relatively early community (disputed) maintained and trasnmitted, we have little confidence that much, if any, of surviving Buddhist scripture is actually the word of the historical Buddha. (Ronald M. Davidson, "Indian Esoteric Buddhism", p.147)"


 * Greetings,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem Joshua Jonathan is that YOUR point of view on the reliability of the Pali suttas is NOT authoritative at all. In fact, it sounds like sectarian Mahayana nonsense from your use of the Sanskrit word 'sutra' instead of the Pali 'sutta' that was used in the edit, and used by all Theravada Buddhist scholars. You are certainly free to include the Mahayana perspective on the Pali suttas, but this should not be the ONLY point of view that we see on Wiki regarding the Buddha and Buddhism.  After all, Mahayana Buddhism was a MUCH later addition to Buddhism and was dramatically adapted to local Asian cultures and practices as it moved eastward to China and Japan.  This makes the 'sutras' not very reliable, but you can't say the same thing about Pali sources without EVIDENCE. The evidence we have here in Sri Lanka are palm leaves dating to the First Century BCE directly from the Fourth Buddhist council whose sole mission was to preserve the Pali oral tradition so we have - as close as we can - a record of what the Buddha actually said. The actual quote I use is the same language we find in the Chinese Agamas that many Mahayana Buddhists now claim as the primary source material for what the Buddha said.


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


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

The book Why God Became a Buddha by Metteyya Brahmana is self-published by the author. Its publisher, Anagami Publishing, has no web presence except to list this one book at http://www.anagamipublishing.com and that web domain, per the whois records at GoDaddy.com, lists the author, Metteyya Brahmana, as the domain registrant. One of the most basic tests of a secondary reliable source is that the publisher of the source have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Self-published works have no such reputation and may be used as reliable sources under Wikipedia policy only in two instances:
 * "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." per WP:SELFPUBLISH, but I can find no indication that this author fits within this category.
 * "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" per WP:ABOUTSELF which is clearly not the case here since the book is not being used as a source of information about the author.

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

The word "first" implies no predecessor.
The article tells us that '"Buddha" is also used as a title for the first awakened being' while the infobox identifies a predecessor called Kassapa Buddha. Perhaps the article could resolve this contradiction as a courtesy to readers. — O'Dea (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No mention of India
Whenever their is an article about someone, you are suppose to mention the country they are from. Everyone (except Nepali people) will tell you that Buddha was born in Ancient India. So why is that not in the first sentence? Now for those of you who hate India, you can say he was from ANCIENT INDIA...or...if you really hate india, you can say he was from ANCIENT INDIA, in what is now known as Nepal...

By the way, in all the other Buddhism articls, it is mentioned that he was from Ancient India. Except here, the article about Buddha?.....does that make sense?

72.67.92.200 (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * I agree with Joshua, of course. Everyone (except for some Nepali and Indian people) will tell you to finally quit your incessant crypto-chauvinist whinging on the subject. The header "no mention of India" is misleading, since the article mentions "India" several times, including in the intro &mdash; just not in the first sentence.


 * The first paragraph of this article is a bit of a trainwreck. It looks to have been manhandled by multiple well-intentioned editors.&mdash;Greg Pandatshang (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It can be read as saying that Buddhism was founded on the teachings of a subcontinent. I can't think of a quick fix, but if nobody gets there in the meantime I'll try take a stab at it tomorrow. Rivertorch (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * &mdash;Greg Pandatshang (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Much better. Rivertorch (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding to the note 8. Buddha was born in Lumbini which is currently in Nepal and the proof for these are UNESCO lumbini, Nepal tourism board, wikipedia nepal http://ne.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%97%E0%A5%8C%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%AE_%E0%A4%AC%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A7 we all knows gautam buddha get knowledge in bodgaya which is in India but he is born in Lumbini NepalManish dangol (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Ancient India
for all the indian who think ancient india is in real india, you are wrong. all uthe south asia comes under ancient india at the time of buddha birth.. india was not india then. neither was nepal. they were divided into small countries. now taking about buddha, he is born south asia, now what we as say it.. for explain it to other. i would like to give example of red indian are not actually indian.. if india comes in a word then it doesnt means the current india... ancient india was the name given by people far away who didnt knew about the south asia.. its like people saying europe.. who didnt knew european countries. my discussion is not about buddha was nepali. coz nepal was not born then. and if u think india was born then its a mistake. but there is proof that buddha was born in lumbini, which currently is in nepal. and it is not right to duplicate it, so that indians can give false information to the world and also to their own people.

this disscussion must soon come to conclusion so that the next generation dont have to discuss about it. especially for nepalese coz indian are creating false proof like making lumbini like in their country.

buddha is born in lumbini, currently in nepal. not definitely somewhere else.. as wiki say.. and would like wiki team to modify it.anyt written "can be anywhere".which is very outrageous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.34.4.243 (talk) 06:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Buddha general description
Buddha was born In Nepal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.90.236.12 (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Buddha was born in Nepal.

Source search for the scholars that doubt the historical Buddha
New World Encyclopedia claims there are scholars that doubt his existence and it seems they took their text from Stephen J. Laumaki's 2008 Cambridge Press book An Introduction to Buddhist Philosophy.

After extensive searching I finally found a couple of European historians that believed Gautama was likely a legend and not historical. They are mentioned in Buddhism in the Netherlands which contains two sources of Johan Hendrik Caspar Kern and the other is Émile Senart which does not exist on English WP but has an article on French Wikipedia,. He states that while he can not prove the negative that Gautama Buddha never existed yet he finds the mythology suspicious:

"“A sect has a founder, Buddhism like every other. I do not pretend to demonstrate that Sakyamuni never existed. The question is perfectly distinct from the object of this treatise, It follows, certainly, from the foregoing researches that hitherto the sacred personage has been given too much historical consistence, that the tissue of fables grouped around his name has been too facilely transformed, by arbitrary piecings, into a species of more or less unplausible history. Skepticism acquires from our analyses, in some regards, a greater precision: still, it does not follow that we should indefinitely extend its limits. In this epic and dogmatic biography, indeed, there remain very few elements which sustain a close examination; but to say this is not to say that among them there has not entered some authentic reminiscence. The distinction is certainly very difficult. Where we are not in a position to show for a tradition its exact counterpart in other cycles, a decision is an extremely delicate process. All that is suspicious ought not necessarily to be eliminated: it is right that whatever is rigorously admissible ought to be retained. There is no alleged deity—not Vishnu, or Krishna, or Heracles—for whom we might not construct a sufficiently reasonable biography by proceeding as has hitherto been done in regard to the legend of Buddha.”" - the English translation from John Robertson's 1911 book Pagan Christs:Studies in Comparative Hierology John Robertson found these sources of Kern and Senart convincing enough to entitle the chapter The Buddha Myth and is also skeptical of the existence of the historical Buddha.  So here we have three scholars casting doubt on the existence of Gautama. 97.85.168.22 (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to add Friedrich Max Müller's reprint of Senert's Essay on the legend of the Buddha - Paris, 1875 (partial because of Google books results) "If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him!" - Zen proverb. 97.85.168.22 (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

According to the latest episode of Secrets of the Dead, what appears to be a reliquy with the historical Buddha's ashes has been authenticated as from the time of the Emperor Asoka This leads one to think he was indeed historical.Ericl (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Relics of the Buddha
I am certainly not enough of a scholar to do this, but it seems that recently a good deal of evidence was presented that the portion of the Buddha given to his family was discovered a century ago, and although the Indian government does not say much about this, the remains were given by the British to King Chulalongkorn (Rama V) of Siam and placed at Wat Saket. Neither this page nor either of those pages say much about this; if there is even a possibility this is true, shouldn't that be of greatest interest to Buddhists? Joel J. Rane (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

India was build by British before there was no India what we see today. It was very very small countries. So, why North India has to be write in the broth place of Buddha, what has to do with India?? Buddha is born in Nepal. Why this side is not corrected this has to be change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.131.198.196 (talk) 06:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Purported birthplace of Gautama Buddha...
Regarding this edit, given that reliable sources don't have a consensus on Siddhārtha Gautama's birthplace, the image should not present an academic opinion as fact when there are differing opinions and no conclusive evidence that it's a fact. There might be a better word to use than purported, but changing the meaning of the sentence when the article doesn't reflect that sentence doesn't help the article. I also don't understand why "a holy shrine also for Hindus, who believe Buddha is the 9th of 10 Dashavataras of Vishnu" was reworded to say that "Buddha is the 9th of 10 Dashavataras of Vishnu." Hindus do believe this, it's not inaccurate to clarify who does so, and it doesn't appear to be a viewpoint held outside of that group of people, so I don't think it's helpful to make the image less concise. - SudoGhost 03:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Lumbini
The lede and infobox should not omit information, nor present information as an undisputed truth when sources do not. The first sentence of the lede needs to be neutral and concise. Lumbini is considered by many to be Siddhārtha Gautama's birthplace, and the article reflects this. There is no cause to remove reliably sourced mentions of other places. - Aoidh (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 September 2013
when some people say he was born in India and some say he was born in Nepal. However, both answers are actually right (although in different ways), and the reason is as follows:

There was no country called "India" and there was country called "Nepal" at the time when the Buddha was born.

The Buddha was born in a small kingdom called Kapilavastu, where his father was the king, which was situated on both sides of today's Indian-Nepalese border. His actual birthplace, Lumbini, is today in Nepal. Many people, thus, say he was born in Nepal, even if that wasn't the name of the country at the time.

Many people, on the other hand, say he was born in India, because Kapilavastu was one of many small independent kingdoms and republics together making up the Indian subcontinent. The people of Kapilavastu were part of the Indian cultural sphere, since they were talking Indian languages (Magadhi for everyday use and Vedic Sanskrit for religious use), since they were dominated by Vedic beliefs (the forerunner to modern Hinduism), and so on.

Some people, though, say he was born in India from a completely different reason. They claim that his birthplace Lumbini was actually in today's India, not in today's Nepal, or more exactly near Piprahwa in Uttar Pradesh, just at the Nepalese border and merely 16 km from the "Nepalese Lumbini". This is clearly a minority view.

There are also some other theories about his birthplace, but most scholars agree on the Nepalese theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapilavastu

86.99.208.122 (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please provide WP:Reliable Sources for the above changes to be made. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 15:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The real birthplace of Buddha is Nepal not India
The real birthplace of Buddha is Nepal not India — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.34.107.201 (talk) 03:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 September 2013
Buddha was born in Lumbini Nepal or not elsewhere. Thus I request to remove the line or elsewhere.

Sudeepsapkota24 (talk) 09:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources show other possible locations; the link to Birthplace of Gautama Buddha should not be removed simply because it reflects this. - Aoidh (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request under article section "Nine virtues"
There is a highly noticeable typo on at the beginning of the section "Nine virtues", which simply consists of a single line which only has one period. This line should be removed when possible, since it makes the article look rather messy. Darkk100 (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

From the view of a moderator.
---Shishir Giri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shishirgiri (talk • contribs) 08:47, 12 September 2013
 * Okay. I will try to be diplomatic here. The talk is focused on Gautam Buddha or Siddhartha Gautam. He was a prince and later became a enlightened sage and many consider him as 9th avatar of Hindu god Vishnu.As a matter of fact there was no India at that time. There was Nepal which was a huge state of Kathmandu valley and surrounding areas.
 * Most of the world consider Kapilvastu, Lumbini, Nepal as birthplace of Gautam Buddha. There are ruins of palace and a pillar made by Emperor Ashoka on his pilgrimage which exactly specifies that -'this point here is the birthplace of Gautam Buddha.' The pillar and palace are said to be built after 250 years of death of Buddha. There is also the pond where Mayadvi, mother of Buddha, took bath at the time of labor.
 * Then there is talk of India. India didn't claimed the birthplace of Buddha as his before about 20 years ago. It has been known to every Nepali that his country was the birthplace of Buddha from more that 5 centuries. It is easy to take India as birthplace of Gautam Buddha as many ancient text refer to areas near the Himalayas as India or specifically- Bharat. It has been mentioned in most of the text that 9th avatar of Vishnu was born in north-east of India. As India claims itself as the birthplace of other most of the Vishnu avatars, it is common for it to claim it as birthplace of Buddha. It is a undisputed fact that Buddha got ernlightment in India and even died there but at the term of birthplace, India's place appears weak.
 * Nepal was always a independent country. British, Tibetan, Chinese and other conqurerers always failed to conquer it. It was the place of commerce between Indian states and Tibet. It contains more ideas of native Buddhism. There is no mention of zen, or any supernatural stories in the story of Buddha here. Most of the people of Nepal consider Buddha as a normal human being who was able to refuse to human desires and acheived godhood. Though not literally, every Nepali condiders Buddha as a part of his/her religion.
 * Even the UNESCO considers Nepal as the birthplace of Buddha. India is known to be claiming Gautam Buddha as its own after the starting of civil war in Nepal about 20 years ago which increased the power of India over Nepal. It is also to be observed that India is constructing a clone of Lumbini ruins just about 35 km far from Nepalese border.
 * Welcome to Wikipedia Shishirgiri. You said that "Most of the world consider Kapilvastu, Lumbini, Nepal as birthplace of Gautam Buddha" and this is more or less true, and this is why the infobox specifically says "Lumbini (present-day in Nepal) or possibly elsewhere" as opposed to just outright saying that there are different possible locations.  However, that doesn't warrant removing the fact that there are other locations presented in reliable sources. - Aoidh (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There are constant problems with this page, most of it due to Nepalese nationalism. It's completely beyond ridiculous that this subject is so often a source of trouble for editors here. The only major point that matters is that Wikipedia should rely on scholarship, not popular beliefs. There needs to be rigor in the editing process, especially for subjects like this. Tengu800 10:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not only Nepalese nationalism; it's also Indian nationalism and Indian regionalism. I've been editing the past few months on India & Hinduism-related articles; at some point I was engaged in four fierce disputes in which scholarly sources were mostly ignored. It caused me to take a Wiki-break and regain some pleasure in Wiki-editing. Some examples:
 * Tamilakam
 * Indian religions
 * Rajiv Malhotra
 * As CuCl2 wrote:
 * "India WAS a spiritual country, where different cultures co-existed and confluenced across South Asia. But that was long before colonization, that threw up new nations on ethnic and religious basis. From that point onwards, things have never been the same, there are suppressed nations every nook and corner, the Balochs in Pakistan, the Kashmiris and the North-Eastern tribes in India, the Hindus of Bangladesh and of course the Tamils of Sri Lanka(something we have dealt with mutually)."
 * I'm afraid that for western Wikipedians the Indian subcontinent is almost too complex too understand. It's an unfortunate irony that it is exactly our western culture which has contributed so thoroughly to those divisions...  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   20:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I cannot agree with you JJ, on two fronts. First of all you fall directly into a very inadequate 'east-west' dichotomy which always has been a reductive generalisation of not much substance. Secondly, notwithstanding the entire recent trope regarding concepts of the nation-state, the Indian subcontinent was already repeatedly drenched in blood by the time the europeans moved in. Nepal was not a country as we now talk about countries - and neither was India. Moreover, the ideas of national borders wasn't present at this time. Likewise, I don't think for a minute that Prince Gautama considered himself either Nepalese or Indian - he was brought up in an independent republican state. Moreover, the regions of the areas were often subsumed into much larger empires, such as the [Nanda empire].  As I have stated before, in terms of the landmass, no-one disputes that Gautama was born in the South Asia aka the Indian subcontinent - what was at the time (in my opinion) considered to be Jambudvipa. (20040302 (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Thanks for the reply! Your remark on "a very inadequate 'east-west' dichotomy" is a good reminder; thanks!  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   18:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Reality about the birthplace of Buddha
There have been conflicting views on the actual birthplace of Lord Buddha. However, history speaks itself. There is no necessity to fuss about Gautama Buddha's birthplace as the UNESCO lists Lumbini(located in Nepal) as the world heritage site because of the fulfillment of following criterias:-

Criterion (iii): As the birthplace of the Lord Buddha, testified by the inscription on the Asoka pillar, the sacred area in Lumbini is one of the most holy and significant places for one of the world’s great religions

Criterion (vi): The archaeological remains of the Buddhist viharas (monasteries) and stupas (memorial shrines) from the 3rd century BC to the 15th century AD, provide important evidence about the nature of Buddhist pilgrimage centres from a very early period.

Lumbini is situated at the foothills of the Himalayas in modern Nepal. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/666
 * The article already reflects the UNESCO listing. - Aoidh (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

vesaka misspelled as vesak
can someone change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.224.225 (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Should we add "historical Gautama" part like Historical Jesus?
I thinking to add content below. Gandhāran Buddhist texts (The Early Buddhist Manuscripts Project http://ebmp.org/index.php) should be definitely mentioned in the article.

"There was no written record about Gautam have been found from his lifetime or several centuries thereafter. Gandhāran Buddhist texts, the oldest surviving Buddhist manuscripts, reported to have been found in or around Haḍḍa near Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan and preserved in the British Library today, was written in the Kharoṣṭhī script and the Gāndhārī language on twenty‐seven birch‐bark scrolls from the first century BCE to the third century CE. Comparing with historical Jesus with non-Christian texts record from 1st century, the existence of historical Gautama was mainly supported by arguments from silence. Son of powerful families/local tribal leaders abandoning everything was a popular theme in Śramaṇa movement. Stories about Gautama's life are very similar to Mahavira, the tirthankara of Jainism, who lived contemporaneously."

--shenzhuxi (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Should the relics of Gautama have a unique page?
Should the sections for the relics of the Buddha list every Sarira of Gautama Buddha, are there more relics than just those contained in the 82,000 stupas of Ashoka? I've only read JS Strong's book Relics of the Buddha and seen a few Chinese news articles; but it seems there are may be more relics of the Buddha than there are pieces of the true cross, which has it's own article different from Jesus. Any other article would list someones physical remains on the same page as there biography. Sarira is a term that covers more than just Buddhas relics, and I assume most sarira are mentioned on the pages of the people they came from. So what's the communities opinion on this?
 * I'd say that a separate page is better: it might be an extensive topic, and I expect a lot of editors not to be interested at all in the topic, and object to a large section on it in the main article.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A unique page for the relics of the Buddha is an excellent idea. JimRenge (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request for section "Early Life and Marriage"
Buddha was *not* born a Hindu, according to both Indian and Western scholars. Click and scroll down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EtatLEal (talk • contribs) 16:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Badly phrased weird line in the 'Historical Siddhārtha Gautama' section
There's currently a line that's weird and low quality in the 'Historical Siddhārtha Gautama' section:


 * "Comparing with historical Jesus with a few non-Christian texts record from 1st century, the existence of historical Gautama was mainly supported by arguments from silence and argument from ignorance."

This sentence is problematic for several reasons. There is no actual comparison with 'historical Jesus' made, and it generalizes arguments about the existance of Buddha to generic forms without providing evidence of either or citing any sources. The double 'with' construction is also grammatically wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.127.108 (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The sentences after ("Son of powerful families/local tribal leaders abandoning everything was a popular theme in Śramaṇa movement. Stories about Gautama's life are very similar to Mahavira, the tirthankara of Jainism, who lived contemporaneously.") are more informative, but also lacks citations, generalize, and have a grammar issue in the first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.127.108 (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Info-box on Hinduism
Hindus also revere the Buddha and several Hindus fast on the day of birth of Buddha - called Buddha Purnima in India. Also, many Vaishnavas consider Buddha as an avatar of Lord Vishnu. Please include this information in the lead to avoid Buddhist POV and add the Hinduism info-box to this article. Apalaria (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above, and that the Vedic culture of the region that Gautama Buddha was born into, already had a "Budh" in the form of the ancient astrology and mythology of the whole region and beyond, called 'Budh' or 'Budha'. Budha is the ancient name for Mercury and gives his name to Wednesday, which is also the day of Mercury in Western cultures. This is to say that the Budha was an ancient name of the god of the planet Mercury, that pre-dates the historical Buddha by many millennia.
 * In the Vedic version of the story, a Budha grows up, he feels angry and ashamed about his birth. He wants to rectify the sin of his birth and hence goes to Saravanavana in the Himalayas to do Tapas (asceticism and penance.) Vishnu, pleased with the tapas, appears to Budha. By Vishnu's blessings Budha learns all the Vedas and arts. See Budha
 * The story of the Gautama Buddha is clearly an embellished version of this previous myth, and mention should be made of this etymological and mythological roots of the name "Buddha", which Gautama was later anointed with this auspicious name, given to him by a people who already considered this name to be auspicious and revered.
 * The name, the myth, and the religion is clearly much older than the account of Gautama Buddha.
 * Thus any newly discovered ancient temple to a Budha, could easily be a pre-Buddhist temple to the god of Mercury and representative of the enlightened intellect or mind ... Budha.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.50.134 (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There's a strong tendency in contemporary Hinduism to include Buddhism into its fold:
 * "The inclusivist appropriation of other traditions, so characteristic of neo-Vedanta ideology, appears ont three basic levels. First, it is apparent in the suggestion that the (Advaita) Vedanta philosophy of Sankara (c. eight century CE) constitutes the central philosophy of Hinduism. Second, in an Indian context, neo-Vedanta philosophy subsumes Buddhist philosophies in terms of its own Vedantic ideology. The Buddha becomes a member of the Vedanta tradition, merely attempting to reform it from within. Finally, at a global level, neo-Vedanta colonizes the religious traditions of the world by arguing for the centrality of a non-dualistic position as the philosophia perennis underlying all cultural differences.(King, Orientalism and religion)"


 * The line of reasoning followed above seems to fit quite nice into this scheme.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 October 2013
It's been proved that the birth place of buddha is Lumbini,Nepal and it's been preserved by UNISCO too.It's better to remove possibly elsewhere.That's makes confusion to the readers. For reference,http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/666 Kuber.dgn (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. The UNESCO source for Lumbini is alreay in the article (note 8), but the other theories are also sourced. I think it would be unwise to remove these without first establishing consensus. --Stfg (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Removing them is not acceptable anyway, given the ongoing discussions. Even though those alternative possibilities are quite nlikely, the fact that there is so much dispute about them, makes them relevant, and so worthy for mentioning.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It is unclear to me as to whether the editors of Wikipedia are disputing the facts or if experts in the field and the standard literature are disputing the established fact of birthplace location. While there are certainly alternative ideas, few in the historical community take them seriously. Could we at least get consensus on that? --Jeffmcneill (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure. IMO, anyone who takes an objective look, will come to that conclusion. The problem is in the "objective"; there's apparently too much at stake at the Indian subcontinent for a lot of people to take an objective look.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Buddha was born in Nepal
All Nepalese pople also Gorkha people proud to be buddha was bron in Nepal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.244.188.16 (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Need for expert input on Buddhist-related article
Personally, I feel that the article Buddhism and violence is for its part not a completely objective or sufficiently broad analysis of the issue of violence in relation to the Buddhist faith, for the most part it seems to be an attack listing collected examples of violence and an effort to use these to label Buddhism as an essentially violent religion. Is anyone here interested in maybe contributing to the discussion? Jared1219 (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Gautam Buddha Was Born IN Nepal Not in India
I read article on wikipedia biddha was born in indian parts but its totally wrong. Nepal is the different country its not a parts of India. So everybody know about this buddha was born IN Nepal's District Kapilbastu its called Lumbini. Thats all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.41.237.47 (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * IN Nepal, they apparaently like to teach there people things as if they are SEPERATE AND DIFFERENT frrom the rest of India...understand...in those days there was no Nepal or India. Bt there was a sphere. A group of Hindu people (majorty was Hindu). And we refer to it as Ancient India. So you can say, to be fair, that Buddh was from Ancient India, in what is now known as Nepal.

Buddha was born in Nepal (Ancient India). He was from a Hindu family. He gained engligtenment in India. He taught in India. And he died in India.

And you want to tell people that he was from Nepal and not INdia? Dont you understand? He was from what is refered to as Ancient India, in what is now known as Nepal. 108.23.228.249 (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia anti-India?
Ive seen this so many times. For example, anybody who studies INdia, will tell you taht Buddha was from Ancient India. SO therefore, the first sentence should be, Buddhism is a relgion from Ancient INdia. OR Buddh was from Ancietn India. But no. Not on Wikipedia! THey always have to take out the word India, and put in things like East India, or the HImalwayas, or the name of the klan which most people don't know where the klan is from. Why do you emprorers at wikipedia do this to India all the time? Why? Is tehre something about HInduism or democracy you dont like? Maybe cus INdia is peaceful, so you think its easy to push INdia around?

No one says Kobe Bryant was born in East AMerica. Or Michal JOrdan was born in North America. So why do you have to say Buddhwa was from East India? Or the HImialways? Why can't you just say it right: Buddha or BUddhism was from Ancident India.

Ill tel you why. Cus many people on wikipedia or anti India! I could give tons of examples! 108.23.228.249 (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There was no such nation as "India" when the Buddha was born, so I fail to see how specifying the location is "anti India". It would be like describing Julius Caesar as an "Italian dictator", or Shaka as a "South African general". Not wrong, but not useful. In contrast Jordan and Bryant are citizens of a modern nation. Citizens of India are treated in the same way. Paul B (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2013
110.54.215.202 (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Gautama Buddha and Siddharta Buddha is diferent. Siddharta is the daughter of Gautama.
 * The Buddha's birth name was Siddhārtha Gautama. Do you have any reliable sources that support what you're saying? - Aoidh (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

3 opinions about Buddha
From Hindus, and they are 1. He was 9th avatar of Vishnu(wonder if even 1% believes that). 2. As atheistic and misleading. 3. Holy men(but that's it).

So all these 3 opinions should be mentioned? Bladesmulti (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe. Have you got sources? Greetings,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   15:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1, 2, can be read from here http://books.google.com/books?id=E_6-JbUiHB4C&pg=PA39 or at least similar knowledge. 3rd one that he's holy men, might be just a expression as per gandhi, and some more prominent hindus views about buddha. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be mentioned in the context of the developments within Hinduism, and the attempts to incorporate the Buddha within modern Hinduism - I guess. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   16:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)