Talk:The Buddha/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Extreme Mahayana Bias in Description of the Buddha and his Teachings

Bias

First, use of Sanskrit names for the Buddha (Siddhartha, Shakyamuni, Gautama, etc.) and future Buddha (Maitreya) is clear Mahayana bias, as the Buddha spoke Magadhi, and the Pali language, not Sanskrit, is the closest equivalent. Sanskrit was the exclusive language of the upper Brahmin caste, whereas the Buddha specifically rejected caste consciousness in his teachings, and mainly taught ordinary village folks in the Magadha region in Northwest India, who obviously were not upper-caste Brahmins and would not have understood the Buddha if he spoke Sanskrit.

Second, describing the central teachings of the Buddha as " Middle Way between sensual indulgence and the severe asceticism found in the śramaṇa movement" shows extraordinary ignorance of the Buddha's teachings, bordering on academic malpractice. In fact, it is serious misrepresentation such as this that is giving Buddhism an "anything goes as long as it is in moderation" bad name that tends toward spiritual relativism. No credible researcher could study the teachings of the Buddha and conclude that sensual indulgence is OK as long as it is not too extreme, as attachment (clinging) to sense objects (including objects of the mind) is presented by the Buddha as the central hindrance to spiritual awakening. Being addicted to only a couple of drinks per day is 'still' addiction, and keeps one chasing the high rather than releasing one from the chase. The severe asceticism that the Buddha rejected was self mortification (intentionally causing the body pain as a penance) practices like starvation, not continued clinging to sense phenomena.

Finally, it is false to suggest the Four Noble Truths, which contain the Eightfold Path, is a 'later' development, as it constitutes the Third Knowledge gained from the Buddha's enlightenment under the Bodhi tree while in the Fourth Jhana of equanimity (non clinging to pleasure or pain). The Four Noble truths and the Eightfold Path are 'both' an insight and a practice, not one or the other. I think the confusion comes from not understanding that certain individuals had already done a great deal of practice of the Four Noble Truths (in this life or in previous ones) without knowing that is what they were doing; and in those limited cases, a liberating insight such as anatta, anicca, or dukkha might be all it takes for 'them' to reach spiritual liberation and awakening.

And there is nothing 'linear' about the Eightfold Path, and nowhere in the teachings of the Buddha is it suggested that it is linear except for sila being foundational to the rest. The Buddha taught to the current character of those who were presented to him, and sometimes these people needed to focus on their anger with metta, their ego with anatta, or sensual desire with 32-parts of the body meditation. All of these things appear in the Eightfold Path, but not in any particular order for one's specific practice. The closest thing the Buddha taught concerning a linear order was removing the 10 fetters, and even there it could be argued that the 10th fetter (ignorance of the Dhamma) and first fetter (release of delusion of permanent self) were inverted or transposed during oral recitation, as the anatta no-self teaching is probably the most advanced teaching, and learning the Dhamma is primary. Here, the Mahayana bias is most apparent, in that there does not appear to be much general knowledge or grasp of the vast teachings of the Buddha over a 40-year period that appear in the Pali suttas.

This whole section on the Buddha should be re-written by Dhamma scholars who have studied everything the Buddha has taught. Otherwise, this reads more like a rationalization for Mahayana practice and theory that focuses on a handful of 'teachings' (Lotus Sutra, Heart Sutra, etc,) that are difficult to attribute to the historical Buddha given the entirety of what he taught rather than a serious effort to describe who the Buddha was and his teachings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.124.243 (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

If you prefer religious teachings above scholarly research, then Wikipedia is the wrong place for you. Read the provided sources on the four truths, instead of calling this "false."Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Just read the Indriya-bhavana Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya (MN 152) that describes the Buddha's enlightenment in his own words, and it is clear that the Four Noble Truths (Third Knowledge) was an integral part and outcome of this enlightenment process, and not a 'later' development as claimed in the Wiki article. The academic cited in the article in support of the 'developed later' theory obviously has a hidden reductionist agenda (i.e., Buddhism is spiritual relativism), and admitting that the Four Noble Truths was the 'earliest' knowledge gained by the Buddha during his enlightenment process undermines this reductionist agenda. The idea that being an academic alone makes one unbiased is complete fantasy, and a sophisticated editor edits out these biases so that the article is a neutral description of the Buddha and what he taught. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.124.243 (talk) 08:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

You've got a funny idea of "neutral" and "biases." Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Materialism and secularization bias must be acknowledged and rooted out if you are going to present the Buddha and his teachings in a 'neutral' light. Otherwise you are simply trying to 'spin' Buddhism so that it appears compatible with materialism rather than as its antidote as taught by the historical Buddha. Why else would the Buddha leave behind three palaces full of beautiful women and all of the material and sensual comforts of life as a prince to find spiritual liberation from suffering in samsara? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.124.243 (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you not consider Naropa and Tilopa Buddhas? The dominant form of Buddhism in India was Vajrayana taught at Nalanda, Vikramsila etc.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Tilopa 'may' have been an Arahant, and there is insufficient information concerning Naropa, although the fact that he turned toward Tilopa rather than the Dhamma as his teacher suggests that his understanding was limited to that of his teacher, which may be limited to what that particular teacher needed for their own awakening rather than a comprehensive Dhamma that could be applied to all beings. The Buddha clearly taught us that after his passing, the Dhamma is to be one's teacher (Maha-Parinibbana Sutta, DN 16, Chap. 2 and 6; also see, Cunda Sutta, SN 47.13, and Gopaka Moggallana Sutta, MN 108). Nalanda was not even a university in India until the 5th century, 1000 years after the historical Buddha's passing. The first thousand years were therefore dominated by early Buddhist teachings affirmed by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Buddhist Councils. There also appears to be a basic lack of understanding concerning the need and purpose of a Buddha by many Mahayana scholars and practitioners. As long as the Dhamma of the historical Buddha is still available there is no need for another Buddha, as Buddhas simply discover the 'same' Dhamma after the previous Buddha's Dhamma has disappeared. The historical Buddha predicted that this process of the current Dhamma dying out would take millions of years to occur when humans have average lifespans of 80,000 years (See, Cakkavatti Sutta (Digha Nikaya 26; PTS D iii 58). The Buddha also predicted that the name of the next Buddha in the next cycle after the Dhamma he discovered has died out would be called, "Metteyya", not Tilopa or Naropa, so we know from the historical Buddha's own words, that neither Tilopa nor Naropa were Buddhas.

An Arahant, on the other hand, is someone who takes the Dhamma of the current Buddha and uses this to liberate herself from suffering in samsara. Therefore any teaching of this Arahant would have to be consistent with the teachings of the historical Buddha, just like the next Buddha. The only difference between new Arahants during the current cycle and the next Buddha besides their previous kamma earned in previous lifetimes is that they have what the current Buddha taught available to them, whereas the next Buddha is 'forced' to discover what the previous Buddha taught on his own. And even the notion that the next Buddha discovered the Dhamma on his own is a bit of a misnomer because any new Buddha did have exposure to previous Buddhas in past lives, and it is the recollection of these past lives that leads to their discovery of the Dhamma and their awakening. This is why the First Knowledge of the historical Buddha while sitting under the Bodhi tree during his enlightenment process was "recollection of his past lives". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.124.243 (talk) 01:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hinayana leads to Arahantship. Vajrayana leads to Samyaksambuddhahood. Tilopa and Naropa are considered Buddhas, just like modern day Khenpo Achö. Maitreya is the Buddha that appears after Buddhadharma is completely extinguished.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, you are not understanding the purpose and function of a Buddha as taught by the historical Buddha. And because the Wiki article concerns the life and teaching of the historical Buddha, those with Mahayana or Vajrayana views like yours should be disqualified from editing the article or their edits should be appropriately headed so that it is clear to the reader that this is a Mahayana or Vajrayana version of who the historical Buddha was and what he taught. Otherwise you are trying to mislead the reader that the Mahayana or Vajrayana version is the 'only' version worth noting, and this obviously is not a neutral point of view.

And use of derogatory terms like "hinayana" (inferior vehicle) are not only not neutral, they suggest a type of "I am" arrogance, conceit, and pretentiousness that squarely conflicts with numerous teachings of the historical Buddha, and is ipso facto evidence that one has not removed even the first fetter (I am) or the eighth fetter (conceit) that bind beings to suffering in samsara. Following a teacher who has not removed these fetters makes it nearly impossible for one to remove these fetters themselves and become truly awakened.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.124.243 (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The idea of the Pali Canon being the source of the historical Buddha's teachings is an invention of 19th century theosophists, known as Buddhist modernism. See Origins of Yoga and Tantra, page 16-17. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, more arrogance, more conceit, more full of one's self with "I am" superior to others foolishness. Definitely, not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.124.243 (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

No its just academic fact. See WP:IRONY.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, an "academic" fact being pushed by an academic with a non-neutral point of view. The "actual" fact of the recording of the Pali suttas that were retained on thousands of palm leaf scrolls dating to the First Century has been preserved here in Sri Lanka. You can even visit the cave where the recording occurred. The content of these manuscripts were preserved in Burma, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia, and formed the basis of that which was used in the Fifth Buddhist Council to preserve the Pali suttas on marble slabs. You can visit Burma today and review these marble slabs for your own edification. No 19th Century Theosophists were present during the Fourth or Fifth Buddhist Councils, and this is an historical fact. Even the Chinese Agamas, which were written down in the Third and Fourth Century agree for the most part (99%) with the Pali suttas, and this would not be possible if the Pali suttas were created by 19th Century Theosophists as your academic source has argued.123.231.124.243 (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I didn't say Pali Canon is from 19th century.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The Fourth Buddhist Council in the First Century is where the oral tradition dating back to the First Buddhist Council at the time of the historical Buddha's passing was first written down here in Sri Lanka on palm leaves in Sinhalese characters representing the Pali language. Your academic source would basically have to argue that either this Fourth Buddhist Council never happened, or that the monks from all over the world that attended this event did not memorize correctly what was passed down to them since the time of the historical Buddha. There is simply no evidence to suggest that the event did not happen (the historical record of the event is fairly clear), and the oral recitation appears to be remarkably consistent given that the oral tradition took place over a 400 year period. There are only a very few instances where there is a lack of internal consistency, and these are easily discerned because the Buddha taught so much and repeated so much of his teachings as pieces that occur in various other discourses in his 40-year ministry that the outliers stand out like a sore thumb.123.231.124.243 (talk) 04:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you're a dogmatic believer with a lack of critical thinking: "I'm right, you're wrong." Maybe you should learn a little bit more about (letting go of) views; see Atthakavagga and Parayanavagga. Also read Pre-sectarian Buddhism, though you probably won't agree with a lot of info there, since it questions your beliefs. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

No, my friend – the views (what the Buddha calls, "right views") expressed here belong to the Dhamma of the historical Buddha, not I, and each view can be supported by the Buddha's own words. "Beliefs" have no place in the Buddhist lexicon, as all of what is taught in the Dhamma of the historical Buddha can be verified through direct experience and practice.123.231.124.243 (talk) 09:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of beliefs, this comes from your personal Wiki page: "I don't believe that there exists any "transcendental reality," be it God, Buddha-nature, Brahman or The Truth." Given this personal bias based on your 'belief', it is virtually certain that your edits to the article concerning the life and teachings of the Buddha will reflect YOUR beliefs, and not a neutral description.123.231.124.243 (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

But you have your own beliefs that directly contradict the Visuddhimagga practice manual.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

And read WP:GOODFAITH. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, no personal beliefs expressed at all, only words from the historical Buddha. Buddhagosha is a scholar and practitioner who claimed in his own writings that he was NOT an arahant and wished to wait for the Metteyya Buddha to attain spiritual liberation from samsara. Given this fact, Buddhagosha's Visuddhimagga work is at best commentary, and certainly is open to debate and criticism just like any other scholarship from Buddhist commentators. Some of his writings concerning meditation have been very useful in Buddhist practice, while others have not been particularly useful.123.231.127.74 (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Out denting and quoting OP here because I want to re-frame a bit:

First, use of Sanskrit names for the Buddha (Siddhartha, Shakyamuni, Gautama, etc.) and future Buddha (Maitreya) is clear Mahayana bias, as the Buddha spoke Magadhi, and the Pali language, not Sanskrit, is the closest equivalent. Sanskrit was the exclusive language of the upper Brahmin caste, whereas the Buddha specifically rejected caste consciousness in his teachings, and mainly taught ordinary village folks in the Magadha region in Northwest India, who obviously were not upper-caste Brahmins and would not have understood the Buddha if he spoke Sanskrit.

• Conventional scholarship employs the Sanskrit terminology as it is both shared with the study of other Indian religious traditions and more familiar and accessible to lay readers. This is for the benefit of the casual reader rather than advancing a claim in favor of any particular sect. Pali terms for key concepts often differ trivially both in their form (dhamma vs dharma) and make more sense when we are talking about concepts specific to the Theravada, rather than shared across the tradition. Anyone who knows the Pali form will recognize the Sanskrit, whereas the reverse is not the case.

Language does matter, and the mere fact that Buddhist scholarship is dominated by Sanskrit rather than Pali scholars does not mean a 'neutral' description of the Buddha should use Sanskrit as a convention, as this tends to subtly push a Sanskritized version of the Buddha (i.e., caste is important) that is invariably rooted in Mahayana and Vajrayana theory and practice. The Buddha specifically rejected caste consciousness, counseled a number of former Brahmin monks to leave their caste behind to become truly awakened, and several lowest caste monks became Arahants, including the Buddha's own barber – Upali – who was charged with safeguarding the entire Vinaya – the rules monks live by, especially when in community with other monks or lay people.123.231.127.74 (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• There is no evidence that the Buddha spoke Pali. This is a traditional view that is unsupported by archaeological and linguistic evidence. Scholarship notes and is aware of this traditional belief and similar myths (historically, some Buddhists believed that Pali was the same thing as Magadhi, which was later largely overturned by the actual Magadhi inscriptions). The Pali article does a good job of covering this in detail.

I have not read the Wiki article on Pali, but it is clear that the Buddha would have spoke the language of the region where he preached in the Magadha region or no one would understand him. And on that point, this would tend to disqualify Sanskrit entirely, as this was an 'exclusive' upper-caste Brahmin language that common village folks along the rivers in the Magadha region would be unfamiliar with – Brahmins were a very small elite minority, not common village folks. But it is highly likely that Brahmins also spoke the local vernacular of the village folks – how else would they be able to communicate with their servants?123.231.127.74 (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

However: With regards to classifying the Four Noble Truths, Eightfold Path, and Dependent Origination as "later" teachings, I think that we could improve here by being a bit less bold in the claims made in the article. Claims with regard to the internal order of material within the Pali Canon/Agamas are notoriously hard to prove and easily diverge into informed speculation. Classifying the teachings into "Core" and "Later Additions" in such a definite way can't avoid taking a side in some very specialized debates, and to me struggles to pass muster on grounds of impartiality and undue weight in this context. The claim that meditation was the only early core teachings and that everything else is a later elaboration, for example, is a claim that reflects a particular scholastic and religious tradition but is not universally accepted either among scholars or Buddhists.

100% in agreement here!123.231.127.74 (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

In fact, the whole "Teachings" section seems somewhat out of place to me in this article- this article is about the historical person and there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that cover what the Buddha might have directly taught and the scholarship surrounding its traditional and scholastic interpretation and analysis. Attempting to identify which teachings were or were not delivered by the historical Buddha is rather beyond the scope of this article, if not Wikipedia itself. I would propose striking that section entirely as an addition by subtraction- a complete exegesis of the debate over the dating of various teachings is too long to be placed inside this article (and is off topic), whereas a summary that just classifies teachings as 'Core' and 'Later' does a great deal of violence to both the traditional and academic consensus, which is far more nuanced and complex. --Spasemunki (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, 100% in agreement!123.231.127.74 (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a serious topic of research, if not one of the central topics of research in Buddhology; people like Schmithausen, Vetter, Bronkhorst and Gombrich are top-scholars. So, I don't think you can just strike them out.

All of these scholars have an 'agenda' when they write, and if this is not obvious to you, then you need to read their work more critically and attempt to discern a materialist bias.123.231.127.74 (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This is about the historical person, not about the later interpretations; the question what he taught is as relevant as can be, as demonstrated by the dogmatic beliefs of this IP. If you think you can leave out the teachings, it's like saying "We write an article on Brad Pitt, but we leave out the movies, since the article is about the person." Why is the Buddhia noteworthy? Because of his teachings and their influence up to today.

I think discussing a few core teachings from a 'number' of perspectives – not just Mahayana and Vajrayana – would be helpful, along with a link to a more complete discussion on another Wiki page concerning the Teachings of the Buddha.123.231.127.74 (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not exist to confirm religious beliefs; it exists to provide reliable info. Branding a topic "beyond Wikipedia" bypasses the basic reason of existence of Wikipedia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The danger here is Wiki becomes associated with pushing a materialist agenda, so all religious experience is discounted, just like the personal bias you expressed in your Wiki profile of not 'believing' there is anything that is 'truth'. How could you possibly discuss the Buddha's Four Noble 'Truths' with this particular "there is no truth" personal bias in a neutral manner?123.231.127.74 (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

NB: please cite correctly: the article does not say "that meditation was the only early core teachings," nor does it say "Later Additions." It's a little bit WP:TENDENTIOUS to quote incorrectly.

I'm interested to see what sources there are for the academic concencus mentioned in "a summary that just classifies teachings as 'Core' and 'Later' does a great deal of violence to both the traditional and academic consensus", and "a claim that reflects a particular scholastic and religious tradition but is not universally accepted either among scholars or Buddhists," when these scholars mentioned bove are the most prominent scholars on this topic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

IP's responses are scattered throughout above. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

May I remind you that these talkpages are WP:NOTFORUM? Let me also remind you that Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not on personal beliefs. Schmithausen, Vetter, Bronkhorst and Gombrich are 100% reliable, according to this policy. If you don't accept that, and prefer to advocate WP:THETRUTH, then you're WP:NOTHERE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

NB: the comment "all of what is taught in the Dhamma of the historical Buddha can be verified through direct experience" reflects one of the main ingredients of Buddhist modernism, and other forms of spirirtual modernism, namely that religious experience provides a reliable, empirical basis for religious "truths." Ironically, the Theosophists have been highly instrumental in popularizing this idea in Asia; not only Sri Lanka, but also India and Japan. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Please do not take my comments out of context, as this makes it falsely 'appear' that I wish to engage in a forum discussion of the article rather than improve the neutrality of the article. It is very important for the reader to understand who and which comment I am responding to so it is clear that this is within the context of improving the neutrality of the article. It is understood that you don't like your lack of neutrality pointed out using your own words from your personal Wiki page concerning your 'belief' that there is no 'truth'. But others should make the call, not you, whether this belief disqualifies you from editing a Wiki page about the life and teachings of the Buddha that discusses the Four Noble 'Truths' as the earliest and most central of the Buddha's teachings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.127.74 (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The context was provided; you're messing-up the chronology of this talkpage, AND you removed my comments diff diff. This is a warning: don't be WP:DISRUPTIVE, and WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I've put back the IP's responses at their scattered positions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

I believe my comments may have been misunderstood. I am not disputing that the sources in the Teachings section are reliable; I am saying that I think the issue under consideration (which teachings are early) is better covered in more complete detail elsewhere. Early Buddhism seems like a more appropriate destination for the material in the Teachings section. The historicity of the early teachings is a very broad concept and an area of a lot of research. I think organizationally placing the material from the Teachings section in the Early Buddhism article puts it in its proper context, and is more likely to get the appropriate attention there. I think the Brad Pitt analogy is flawed; I would compare instead the Jesus article which tackles biography and historicity (both big topics) without attempting to classify specific teachings as original or not. To whit: We present three views regarding the early teachings, and then we present several paragraphs drawn only from the third view. We do not mention the Buddhavacana tradition, which likely constitutes the most widely held popular view and is roughly congruent with the first of the three academic positions mentioned. There has been good work done in collecting these sources and positions, but the reader might be better served by being directed to a more central and complete discussion of the issue rather than re-creating a portion of a very large topic (the historicity of certain teachings) in what is already a very large topic (the historicity and traditional biography of Gautama). I'll create a more concrete suggestion to try and bring us back to an actual edit --Spasemunki (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I've suggested a revision at User:Spasemunki/techings section (because I am a slapdash speller)- I would propose that the remainder of the Teachings section be merged with Early Buddhism. --Spasemunki (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I am in 100% agreement with Spasemunki's proposed solution.123.231.127.74 (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

OpposeVictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind discussing your objections? --Spasemunki (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Spasemunki: I'd already been thinking about your comments yesterday, and you've certainly got a point here. Your proposal keeps essential information. Yet, it also omits essential information: the Buddha's teachings may have been different from what we today perceive as his teachings. I think that that's essential information. An encyclopedia does not exist to conform our worldview; it exists to provide new info and make us think about our knowledge.

The article on Pre-sectarian Buddhism provides a fulle roverview, and also an alternative theory, on the research on the earliest teachings. Actually, the info in the Buddha-article was copied from that article.

There's also another point to consider: the relation between dhyana and insight is a decennia-old "problem" in the study of Buddhism, and reveals clearly that there have been developments within Buddhism, even at a very early stage. It's a problem that's also relevant for other religious traditions, that is, Hinduism and modern spirituality. And it's a problem that's still actual, as can be seen in Zen-Buddhism (Rinzai versus Soto), and in the controversy over Neo-Advaita. This is the essential question: is "insight" sufficient to be "liberated"? This question is related to other questions: what does "liberated" mean, how does it effect someone? This is not only an academical question, it's also a practical question, which will be recognisable for mny practitioners.

The scholars mentioned here, Vetter etc., are not just random scholars; they are top of the bill, the leading scholars on this topic. One of the core policies, nay, the mission of Wikipedia, is to provide an overview of the relevant information on a topic, based on WP:RS. This is as relevant as can be: what did the Buddha himself teach, according to the leading scholars on this topic?

Most people, even Buddhist, will never read this kind of studies. I read them only after 25 years of practice and study, and I'm not the average person in regard to reading academic studies. Bookstores, also New Age book stores, typically don't sell academic studies on Buddhism. They only sell popular books, which confirm the popular views. So, yes, in accordance with the mission of Wikipedia, this article on the Buddha is a very appropriate place to serve this portion of fresh mind food.

Best regards, and thanks for your thoughtfull input, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

All of this should be in the Teachings section on Buddhism, as these are not introductory concepts and perspectives. I personally agree with you on the "insight vs. dhyana" issue that generally speaking insight is not enough for awakening for most people, but I think where we differ is concerning the acceptance of past life reality, in which one could have done considerable work in past lives, in which one liberating insight might be all it takes for 'that' person. The historical Buddha is a classic example of this type of spiritual liberation. Of course, if you do not accept past life reality as you have stated elsewhere, you would then discount the historical Buddha's description of his enlightenment experience. But not accepting past life reality puts you at odds with perhaps 95% of the Buddhists worldwide, including the historical Buddha and the Dalai Lama of Tibetan Buddhism. Because your personal views are so far out of the mainstream of Buddhism, it is difficult for you to edit sections on Buddhism from a 'neutral' point of view.123.231.127.74 (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I accept past lives just fine.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Supreme Buddha

"In most Buddhist traditions, Siddhartha Gautama is regarded as the Supreme Buddha (Pali sammāsambuddha, Sanskrit samyaksaṃbuddha) of the present age"

The above statement is not true. In Mahayana Gautama Buddha is the Supreme Nirmanakaya.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Facing the Buddha

should I face our buddha in any certain direction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.134.31 (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

should I face our buddha in any certain direction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hicklebrae (talk • contribs) 12:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gautama Buddha. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.bdkamerica.org/digital/dbet_t0192_buddhacarita_2009.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Alternate names

In the Mahaparinirvana section there are several names listed by which the Buddah have been referred. There is some confusion, possible mistakes and a lack of information as well as inline links. Parinirvana refers to nirvana-after-death, as apposed to "nirvana-in-this-lifetime", which would be "the dissolution of the body of one who has already entered nirvana". When one reaches nirvana and finally dies, it is said that he (or she) enters parinirvana, to be placed in a Parinirvana Stupa or death place. An Arihant in Jainism is a siddha who has not yet died. An Arhat in Buddhism, is a person who has attained nirvana or the "perfected one".

• Jina is the same as Arihant (Jainism).
• Jinendra is of Jainism origin.
• Sāstr is a possible Sanskrit word with unknown meaning.
• Sugata is an epithet of the Buddha meaning "gone to bliss".
• Tathāgata means "one who has thus gone" or "one who has thus come".
• Bhagavā means "Lord", "Master", "Exalted One", "Blessed One".
• Bhagavata means "the Adorable One".
• Bhagavan means "The Blessed One".
• Shakyamuni means "Sage of the Shakyas".
• Mahavira in Jainism means omniscient teacher of the dharma.

His real name is siddhartha gautam Ishanbull (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Indic text in the main article

Indic text for the Pali or Sanskrit words sounds necessary to me throughout the article. This helps preserve the native pronunciations of the Pali/Sanskrit words, which are otherwise often misrepresented in Latin alphabets. For that matter, even Burmese, Sinhalese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Chinese ... text should be allowed to mention in proper context, whenever needed, to preserve the fidelity of the words. An attempt to add Indic words for Shakyamuni Buddha and Sidhhartha Gautam was repeatedly undone by certain users on the grounds that 'No Indic text in the main article, please.'. Are there any rules that disallow usage of non-Latin alphabets or characters in the main body of Wikipedia articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulbikkhu (talk • contribs) 08:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:INDICSCRIPT: "There is community consensus that the lead sentence of an article should not contain any regional or Indic language script." JimRenge (talk) 08:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

misconceptions – physical appearance

Buddha was indian like his predecessors and never looked chinese or black like some misconceptions. There are also misconceptions about hygiene. If he was unhygienic in appearance he could not have been religious. Anyone with this info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.98.100.138 (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Location of Gautama Buddha's death and parinirvana

Ms Sarah Welsh, thank you for summarizing what modern reliable sources state about the place where Gautama Buddha died. I believe the section gives undue weight to the problem of the localization of the place of Gautama Buddha's death in this article. I propose to move this section to Kushinagara and use some of the refs to verify the corresponding sentence ("Ananda protested the Buddha's decision to enter Parinirvana in the abandoned jungles of Kuśināra (present-day Kushinagar, India)[refs] of the Malla kingdom.") in the Mahaparinirvana section. I think the recently added section "Location of Gautama Buddha's death and parinirvana" in Paranirvana (Parinirvana#Location of Gautama Buddha's death and parinirvana) gives undue weight to the location in the context of this article and should be removed. JimRenge (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe a little bit more? Something like "According to Buddhist tradition, the Buddha died at Kushinagara, which became a pelgrimage center." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@JimRenge: Sorry, I never got this ping and missed this talk page completely. Indeed, that section looks odd and I am fine with moving most of it. I was concerned with the mention of just Rampurva from an 1896 publication, ignoring the scholarship that followed over 100+ years. A few sentences on Kushinagara (Kusinagari, Kusinagara, Kusinari) along the lines of what @JJ suggests may be prudent. The mention of it being a pilgrimage center since ancient times, of Ashoka, of Gupta's addition of reclining Buddha, of rediscovery may also be worthwhile. I leave it to your call, I have no particular preference on what, where and how. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Might I suggest that this section be moved to the historical Buddha section? Like others have suggested, we can shorten it a bit, while some details can be given in the footnotes, more or less consistent with how the birth place issue has been tackled. Manoguru (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I have added Joshuas sentence to the "Mahaparinirvana" section and moved the "Location of Gautama Buddha's death and parinirvana" section to Kushinagar. Feel free to correct this. JimRenge (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Evidences on Gautam Buddha

How to Attach photos?? Any one help me. I have evidences on Gautam Buddha. Thapa Kazi999 (talk) 04:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Birth Place of The Buddha

The birth place of The Buddha is undoubtedly Lumbini, now a city in Kapilvastu District of present-day Nepal.

I tried to change it in the first paragraph but it was instantly reverted by Chewing72, perhaps the contributor of the page.

My logic is that it should not be objectionable, for any reason, to anyone to mention the birthplace of The Buddha,stating where it lies now.

Chewing72 had the logic that at the time of The Buddha, there were no Nepal and India. I agree to it.

But, why is it objectionable for him/her to state that Lumbini now lies in Nepal? It should be corrected with immediate effect.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singa lama (talk • contribs) 06:36, 4 January 2016‎

Nepal is being mentioned in the "Conception and birth" section. Mentioning "Nepal" in the lead-section is undue; the Buddha is known and relevant for his teachings, not for his place of birth. That's only relevant for present-day Nepalese nationalists, not for the person of the Buddha. Please read the note in the infobox. This has been discussed thoroughly before; there is a broad concencus not to mention Nepal, given the nationalistic sentiments at the Indian subcontinent. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Joshua Jonathan, per WP:LEAD the lead should summarize the article; mentioning "Nepal" in the lead-section appears to be undue. The "Conception and birth" section states: "The Buddhist tradition regards Lumbini, in present-day Nepal to be the birthplace of the Buddha." JimRenge (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Buddha was born in Nepal.But still in countries like neighbouring India it taught in school curriculum and widespread in media that Gautam Buddha was born in India. Kunwar Rabindra (talk) 06:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Ya kunwar rabindra is right so to bring enlightment and awareness on people it is must Ishanbull (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

You should metion Nepal than India or the Shakya Republic. Everyone should know that Gautam Buddha was born in Nepal not India. Maharjanjen (talk) 04:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2016

45.115.188.233 (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Buddha was born in Kapilvastu ,Lumbini, Nepal.

It can be mentioned birthplace of Buddha as: Lumbini, Shakya Republic(Present day Lumbini Sanskritik Municipality, Rupandehi district, Nepal). At his time no definite Nepal or India was there but now it lies in present day Nepal. So, I request admins to edit to present day Nepal. The truth needs to be revealed in sources like Wikipedia for knowledge to all and if Wiki is biased to Indians, that would be handful oppression of a Personality born in present day Nepal. Thapa Kazi999 (talk) 05:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• • • Lumbini Sanskritik Thapa Kazi999 (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Nepalese categories

As to be expected, Thapa Kazi999 was [User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Buddha bio double standards|not happy] with my removal of his Nepalese categories. Here's what he wrote:

When you guys create hoax debate between Real Kapilvastu, Nepal and Fake Piparhawa, UP and Fake Kapileshwar, Orissa and in the categories section you keep only Indian tags (which is wrong) and deleted the Nepali categories, isn't it woefully biased?? Buddha's birthplace is complete inside the Nepali border and his kingdom too. Though he gained Buddhahood in India and preached in India, that now makes him an Indian. Dr. Baburam Bhattarai, ex-Nepali PM studied at JNU, Delhi and Aung San Suu Kyi studied @Mumbai, Did that make them an Indian?? What's technically sick is that even UNESCO recognised Buddha's birthplace & still some Indians and India-funded scholars have Iron-coated skull when it is to acceptance of Nepal as birthplace and hometown of Mahamanav?? When you make two-partite article in Wiki, then why only the Indian tags?? Why only Indian tags and not Nepali categories?? Is this wiki an Indian organisation??? बुद्ध नेपाली शाक्यवंशज हुन् कुनै भारति हैन, सत्य नमान्ने तिम्रो रूपको कहीँ आरती छैन। Thapa Kazi999 (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC) If that was Nepali Nationalism then keeping Indian categories doesn't make you an Indian Nationalists. Another national biasness or grand ignorance. Thapa Kazi999 (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's see. These categories were added:

• Category:National heroes of Nepal – granted: National heroes of Nepal.I've put that one back.
• Category:Nepalese people – there was no nepal at 500 BCE.
• Category:Nepalese royalty – nor Nepalese royalty; by the way, Gautama did not belong to a royal family; the Shakya republic, was, well, that: a republic.
• Category:Nepalese educators – educator? For a guru? And again: no Nepal at 500 BCE.
• Category:Nepalese philosophers – philosopher? For a teacher who beliueved he had fpound a practical way to release from graving and rebirth? And again: no Nepal at the time.

As for the rant:

• hoax - ...
• "India" is not to be understood as the Republic or state of India, but the subcontinent. Sorry if that's too simplistic, but most oeople in this world probably use these two terms as synonyms. Compare "Holland" and "the Netherlands"; strictly speaking, Holland is a part of the Netherlands, but most non-Dutch say "Holland" when they mean "the Netherlands." So what?
• "Buddha's birthplace is complete inside the Nepali border and his kingdom too" – yep, but he was not born in nepal, but in the Shakya republic.
• "even UNESCO recognised Buddha's birthplace" – UNESCO does not say that he was born in nepal; Unesco says that his birthplace lies in presentday Nepal.
• "Is this wiki an Indian organisation" – no, it's not, it's American, as you might know if you like further than just the Nepalese & Indian borders. There's more in this world than just your country!

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Joshua Jonathan, word India donot represent the whole subcontinent. Nepal is mentioned in very ancient Vedic Texts before the birth of Christ and Buddha. The Gopal kings, Kirata Kings, Thakuri kings, Lichchhavi kings are not Indian subjects though rigid bordered Nepal was not there and they ruled south of Himalayas (part of South Asian subcontinent). They are still considered Nepali topics. So, Buddha cannot be categorized into Indian Male Philosophers, Indian Yogis, etcs. He can be categorized Shakyan Philosophers or South Asian Philosophers not Indian Yogis or Philosophers.

You accepted Buddha was born in Shakya Country, present day Nepal. Why still there is no mentions of present-day Nepal in the birthplace section of Buddha's article?? Why a fake citation is added about Piparhawa and Kapileshwar village?? The article seems to create a debate between Nepal and India thus making readers understand India as contender of Buddha's birthplace?? The controversial Zee TV serial is kept in Media section of article which showed Buddha's birthplace in India and such unjustified serials are kept.

All these elements shows up to make readers think Buddha an India-born Philosopher which is unacceptable and unapologetic. Even Indian PM gives worldwide speech on Buddha's birthplace and the encyclopedias like Wiki also stands up an unclear article suggesting some debate in Nepal vs India. This is big blow to us. The birthplace is still a Nepali heritage wherever he went to taught people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thapa Kazi999 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The article mentions Nepal three times in the main text, and several times in the notes. The point is, you're projecting present-day states and borders 2,500 years back in time, and suppose that present-day Nepal is exactly the same as the territory, peoples and beliefs of that time. That has got nothing to do with facts or meaningfull info, but is all about nationalism: the supposed identity of people, territory and culture. You're free to belief so, but Wikipedia is not the place to propagate nationalism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Indeed. @Thapa Kazi999: You allege, "Nepal is mentioned in very ancient Vedic Texts before the birth of Christ and Buddha." Which verse of which Vedic text mentions the word "Nepal"? I just checked the Harvard University's resource on the Vedic texts concordance, and Nepal or Nepal-like term isn't there. On rest, your edit history in this article/matter has been disruptive. Please see WP:SOAP and WP:WWIN. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2016

Dhrub nyupane (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC){there is a problem as per as my concern lord Gautam Buddha was not born in eastern part of india  but the exact answer is that he was born in south-western  part of nepal,Lumbini,at kapilvastu district,Nepal. I Will be thankful if you relie with the truth and corrrect the mistake .

 Not done - This has been discussed numerous times before. The actual birthplace of the Buddha is not known, and is irrelevant to his teachings. Nepal is mentioned in both the "Conception and birth" section, and in the long note attached to the infobox. The consensus is not to promote the Nepalese claim, or Indian counterclaim, given the nationalistic sentiments at the Indian subcontinent. - Arjayay (talk) 10:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2016

Gautam buddha got enlighten in BouDh Gaya which was a part of greater Nepal then.now called Gaya in Bihar India, after his enlightenment he started to preach local people of Gaya and came to kapilvastu to educate people about what is the cause of suffering to his country men ,the same reason why he left the lavish royal life as a prince in search of an answer for the suffering of his countrymen.He was born in greater nepal, todays nepal is the merged different small states run by the different kings.while unification of one nepal nepalese lost gaya to the india which is the part of bihar close to nepal's border. Mookoond (talk) 07:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gautama Buddha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121114032020/http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/vandana02.pdf to http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/vandana02.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2017

Kindly write right and full name of Buddha, his name is Siddhartha Gautam not Gautama and full name was Siddhartha Gautam Shakya. this is why he's known as Shakyamuni, which was also a title like Buddha. thank You. 2.51.30.250 (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

If Suddhodana was an elected oligarch, not king, then how was Mahamaya a queen?

I believe most modern scholars say Suddhodana was an elected leader of an oligarchic republic. This article says his consort Mahamaya was a princess. And then it next says she was Queen Maya. Can this be clarified?

Suddhodana... "an elected chief of the Shakya clan",[6] whose capital was Kapilavastu, and who were later annexed by the growing Kingdom of Kosala during the Buddha's lifetime. Gautama was the family name. His mother, Maya (Māyādevī), Suddhodana's wife, was a Koliyan princess. Legend has it that, on the night Siddhartha was conceived, Queen Maya dreamt that a white elephant with six white tusks entered her right side,[83][84] and ten months later[85] Siddhartha was born. As was the Shakya tradition, when his mother Queen Maya became pregnant, she left Kapilvastu for her father's kingdom to give birth. However, her son is said to have been born on the way, at Lumbini, in a garden beneath a sal tree.

Cheers

Scottahunt (talk) 08:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gautama Buddha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121031180234/http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/t/the-astamahapratiharya-buddhist-pilgrimage-sites/ to http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/t/the-astamahapratiharya-buddhist-pilgrimage-sites/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The Buddha or Buddha?

I have noticed there is an inconsistency in the article, in that sometimes the article speaks about the Buddha and sometimes just Buddha. I propose this should be corrected for consistency. I believe most expert scholars use the former.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2017

It says: "[having almost drowned, then saved...] Siddhartha began to reconsider his path. Then, he remembered a moment in childhood in which he had been watching his father start the season's ploughing. He attained a concentrated and focused state that was blissful and refreshing, the jhāna."

The question is: did he attain jhāna at the spot where he stood reconsidering his path and remembering the ploughing? Or was it that he had attained jhāna back then when he was watching the ploughing, and now remembered the jhāna state? I guess it is the later, what I can remember from other sources, but it is ambiguous here... Or did he in fact reach jhāna by reflecting on his memory? 77.218.228.35 (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

That was unsourced / WP:OR. Removed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a source dealing with him reflecting on this. Here is it used in another article: Dhyāna in Buddhism#Discovery of dhyana It can be found here also at 31: http://www.wisdompubs.org/book/middle-length-discourses-buddha/selections/middle-length-discourses-36-mahasaccaka-sutta . What I can see it does not however adress the story element of him and the group of five companions led by Kaundinya (his ascetic companions), him almost dying, and the village girl giving him food. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.218.228.35 (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

He remembered the jhana-state; this memory led him onto the path of jhana – according to Buddhist tradition. This explanation is, of course, at odds with later doctrinal developments, which emphasize the attainment of insight as being liberating. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

wife and son

pls add the following contents under the parents in the top right section of Gautama Buddha summary.

Wife: Yasodharā Son: Rāhula — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.66.40.102 (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Birth Place of Lord Buddha

Buddha was born in Nepal, at Lumbini which is now located in Nepal. There are rumors about Buddha being born in India but that's not the fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.34.20.63 (talk) 11:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The earliest accounts come from centuries after his death. Andre Bareau argues that the association with Lumbini is folkloric rather than historical. So you can't just declare this to be "the fact" and leave it at that. "India" as used here should not be confused with the borders of the modern Republic of India.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oJ5akTHJah4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Lord Buddha

I read somewhere that Lord Buddha was born in 5 December is that true? Shivansh44444 (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes Shivansh44444 (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

We can't even narrow down the years of his life within a century, but somebody thinks they know his birthday? And according to Gregorian calendar, yet! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.162.223.73 (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Did people need official papers to travel back then?

Did people need to have official papers (the equivalent to a passport) to travel in those places back then? 109.156.38.168 (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2017

Please change "49 days" to "48 days" in the awakening section of this page as that is the correct amount of time the Buddha spent under the Bondhi tree ArchieCoode (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Nihlus 18:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

MOS section on articles Buddhism

Dear fellow Wikipedians, I have started a policy proposal to include into the Manual of Style for Wikipedia articles about Buddhism. Comments are welcome.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Did Buddha asked to be worshipped?

Did Buddha ask people to worship him? 109.159.127.187 (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe. When he died, stupas were build, tradition says. And the Mahayana-tradition definitely worships Buddhas; this may have roots in the Buddha's kifetime. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit See Also

Add the name of Mahavira,the 24th Tirthankar of Jain religion, contemporary of Gautam Buddha Chandranandini (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Are there any modern study of Buddha the man?

Are there any modern study of the Buddha as a man? For example, are there any studies into his psychology, mental state or physical and mental health throughout his life? Or is the Buddha seen as being perfect by his followers, as for example the Christian view that Jesus Christ was without sin? 2A00:23C5:C10B:A300:DEC:B34F:9013:7FA2 (talk) 05:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

That depends on who you ask. Scholarly perspectives can be found in What the Buddha Thought by Richard Gombrich, as well as in The Buddha, by Karen Armstrong. The latter is semi-scholarly. Please note that that is a file which includes five books of her.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Buddha

Buddha, the founder of Buddhism was born about 2500 years ago in Lumbini in Nepal. Buddha belong to a small gana as the sakya gana and was a kshariya.

It's already there, do you want something else to be added.?? Anmolbhat (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Buddha was born 2500 years ago in lumbini which lies in modern Nepal. Utsavpoudel (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Should there be a section on his legacy?

I was surprised to find that this article lacked a legacy subsection from a man so influential to the fabric of history. What are your opinions on including a legacy subsection to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardElric2016 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

From the lead: " on whose teachings Buddhism was founded." That should suffice. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

What kind of things would you like to include, EdwardElric2016?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 06:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps some detail on how much it influenced Indian, Chinese, Koran, etc philosophy and culture for a start. -- EdwardElric2016 (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Any sources, EdwardElric2016?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure we can find a bunch of credible sources already being used on Wikipedia articles relating to subjects like culture and philosophy specific to those regions. -- EdwardElric2016 (talk) 08:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I object. "Legacy" is a reification of the influence of a person we only know about because of this "legacy." The "person" of the Buddha is a reconstruction, based on scriptures from a later period. Maybe that's the only "legacy" we can speak about; don't attribute too much to a single person. Anyway, there already are plenty of articles on Buddhism, so there's no need to double this info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion is too general to be fruitful. We need specific examples.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 6 March 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move this page, per the discussion below; possibly worth trying a new request to solicit opinions on moving Buddha (title). Dekimasuよ! 17:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Gautama Buddha → Buddha – Many reliable sources including Britannica and Biography.com use this name to refer to the religious figure. 192.107.120.90 (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose move: buddha is "an epithet derived from the Sanskrit root √budh, meaning “to awaken” or “to open up” (as does a flower) and thus traditionally etymologized as one who has awakened from the deep sleep of ignorance and opened his consciousness to encompass all objects of knowledge." (Buswell, Robert Jr; Lopez, Donald S. Jr., eds. (2013). Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press) Because Buddhist texts know many other buddhas, such as Vairocana, Amitābha, etc, the title of this article should be specific. JimRenge (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: Although the term "the Buddha" most commonly refers to Gautama Buddha, Buddhists believe that there are many Buddhas (enlightened ones) and one has to specify "Gautama Buddha" for the historical person in question. I would rather keep the title of this article as it is now. Hoverfish Talk 16:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per above and per List of the named Buddhas, etc. Many Buddhas in some Buddhist belief systems. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above. I'm not sure why people think that an idea they had one day is something that no one has ever thought of before, including people who subscribe to that religion._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per JimRenge. Please note that Brittanica has "Buddha (founder of Buddhism)" as its entry (don't overlook the words in brackets), something I would agree with. As for biography.com, I am not sure whether this qualifies as WP:RS--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, and move Buddha (title) to Buddha (currently a redirect to Gautama Buddha). Maitreya is another important Buddha, probably no less so than Gautama. -Zanhe (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• You know, that isn't a bad idea. But it seems such a major change that it would probably require its own RM, although this RM could endorse it. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose same arguments as above. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Birthplace of Budhha

Gautam Budhha, known as Budhha was born in Lumbini, western part of Nepal. Lumbini is one of the zones of Nepal. Budhha was the prince known as Sidhhartha Gautam son of king Suddhodan Gautam and Mayadevi Gautam. His early life passed in Nepal and he was wondering about why people take birth, become sick and why they die? His curiosity finally took him to Gaya India for meditation. His citizen was Nepali.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maheshthapamagar (talk • contribs) 23:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

7 Weeks (49 days) Buddha sat under the Bodhi Tree

The #7 is significant in the story of Buddha sitting under the Bodhi Tree for 7 weeks (49 days) and this should be included in the article. 73.85.204.197 (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

It is mentioned in this sentence:

After a reputed 49 days of meditation, at the age of 35, he is said to have attained Enlightenment ...

The article is lacking in many other ways, but the fact you mentioned is in it.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Pictures related to Nepal

Though UNESCO has recognized Lumbini of Nepal as birthplace of Gautam Buddha it is sad no to see any of pictures of Gautam Buddha from Lumbini of Nepal. Please check it once. Justice giving Editor (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Is Vesak a new year celebration?

Your opinion in this discussion is appreciated.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Statue

Moved from User talk:Joshua Jonathan.

I noticed that you removed recent addition of Gautama Buddha Statue of Ravangla.

Probably you should go through the article to which the image referred to i.e; Buddha Park of Ravangla

And I quote from the article which by the way not written by me -

It was constructed between 2006 and 2013 and features a 130-foot high statue of the Buddha as its centerpiece. The site was chosen within the larger religious complex of the Rabong Gompa (Monastery), itself a centuries-old place of pilgrimage. Also nearby is Ralang Monastery, a key monastery in Tibetan Buddhism.

The statue was consecrated on 25 March 2013 by the 14th Dalai Lama, and became a stop on the 'Himalayan Buddhist Circuit'. The statue of the Buddha marks the occasion of the 2550th birth anniversary of Gautama Buddha.

Does this image need any more qualifier to be in the page about Gautama Buddha ?

In case there is a disconnect I would like to have opinions of other administrators of wikipedia as well. Subhrajyoti07 (talk) 07:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Subhrajyoti07: what are the qualifiers? It's size? The location? The Dalai Lama? The occasion? If only for the occasion: older chronologies date his birth at ca. 563 BCE, while more recent chronologies date him it at ca. 483 BCE. 2550th birthday, counting from 2013 CE, gives us 537 BCE. So, more explanation would be welcome. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: The qualifier is that Ravangla is a very important place of Buddhist Pilgrimage for centuries and the statue has been consecrated by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, which shows the importance of this structure.

I am sharing a link of the event from dalailama.com – https://www.dalailama.com/news/2013/consecration-of-the-tathagata-tsal-and-teaching-at-ravangla-sikkim – Subhrajyoti07 (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Subhrajyoti07:, I agree with @Joshua Jonathan:s removal of the picture. Your photo (your own work) is a good choice for the Buddha Park of Ravangla article. We already have several images of the Buddha in the article, your photo does not add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Sorry, but I think it is not a good idea to shoehorn your own work/photo into an article. Please see Wikipedia:Image use policy and WP:BRD for more info. JimRenge (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@JimRenge: Ok I agree to your point and remove my objections on the article edit. Subhrajyoti07 (talk) 09:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Treeleaf Zendo

Comments are welcome.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Tracing the oldest teachings

• I've moved back into notes several quotes per WP:QUOTEFARM; those quotes illustrate the various positions, but make the main overview of positions less accessible.
• I have also changed

The reliability of these sources is disputed and could prevent the oldest teachings from being traced.

back into

The reliability of these sources, and the possibility of drawing out a core of oldest teachings, is a matter of dispute.

These are two separate factor, which were changed into a causal relation.

• I've also restored the exact quotes from Schmithausen/Gombrich, because that's what they are: direct quotes.
• I have not restored the tag above this section; I think it's fine so.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that Josh. It was kinda hard to see what was what in the original, so I apologise for messing it up a bit and thank you for sorting it out. Hopefully it didn't take too long :) LampGenie01 (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@LampGenie01: no, my apologies for undoing your efforts. You put time and effort into it, and I felt unconfortable about undoing it. But point two and three were, indeed, incorrect; while, after having seen the effect of moving the info from the notes into the main text, so we could what the effect is, I concluded it was better off in notes. But again, my apologies for the time and effort you put into it, which are appreciated. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

If its improving the article (which your version definitely does in my opinion), then there is nothing to apologise for. I like your version (its concise and to the point) and I've learnt a new policy that I wasn't aware of. Win-win! LampGenie01 (talk) 08:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You're very kind! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2018

the part defining 'nirvana' as an extinguishing of 'fire' and ignorance, etc using britanica as a citation should be removed seeing as it gives the wrong idea of the extinguishing nirvana implies. 2600:8805:9880:A720:81AB:DF26:B503:7306 (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I am unsure as to why the definition of nirvana as "the extinguishing of the "fires" of desire, hatred, and ignorance, that keep the cycle of suffering and rebirth going" is incorrect. So please provide a reliable source to support the changes you want to be made and provide the correct definition of nirvana that will replace the above-mentioned one. Waddie96 (talk) 08:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Alternative spelling of Buddha

His name is also spelled Gautam Buddha in Nepal.Could add Gautama Buddha is also known as Gautam Buddha.

Thanks.

Throughout he's referred to as Gautama even though he's best known as Buddha. Is this another manifestation of Wikipedia pseudo-esotericism?

'Buddha' can refer to other entities in the Buddhist tradition, whereas Gautama unambiguously refers to a specific person who is frequently identified by that name in the primary sources. 'Buddha' is also more like a title than a name, and Wikipedia's NPOV prefers names to titles. --Spasemunki (talk) 10:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

If one were to refer to him merely as Buddha, one would risk confusing him with other Buddhas, such as Amitabha Buddha, Vairocana Buddha, Meitreya Buddha, or kassapa Buddha. Since the term Buddha is a title rather than a name, it is as absurd to write an article about Gautama Buddha referring to Gautama Buddha as merely Buddha as it would be to write an article about, for example, Saint Erkinwald referring to Saint Erkinwald as merely Saint.

Request to change lord Gautam Buddha born place

Gautam Buddha was born in Nepal lumbini not in India Uttar Pradesh and as you can see lumbini is in Nepal map not in Uttar Pradesh map. Please I would like to request to team that look into this mater with proper proceed, Thank you. Kcvishal (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

The article does not state that the Buddha was born in Uttar Pradesh. It says:

The Buddhist tradition regards Lumbini, in present-day Nepal to be the birthplace of the Buddha.[87][note 1] He grew up in Kapilavastu.[note 1] The exact site of ancient Kapilavastu is unknown.[88] It may have been either Piprahwa, Uttar Pradesh, in present-day India,[57] or Tilaurakot, in present-day Nepal.[89] Both places belonged to the Sakya territory, and are located only 15 miles apart.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Tathagata

Why is the name that Buddha Gautama gave himself, the Tathagata, not mentioned here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.9.171.15 (talk) 10:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Ehm... Good question, I'm afraid. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2018

Gautama Buddha was born in Maya Devi Temple, which is located in Lumbini of Nepal. So edit this and provide correct info, please. Link to maya devi temple wiki page Maya Devi Temple, Lumbini SabinRB (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 03:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Who founded Buddhism?

Siddhartha Gautama founded Buddhism. The narrative we have read about is that of a young prince that grew up with anything he needed. His father kept Siddhartha from leaving the palace walls. Siddhartha then became curious about what lies beyond the palace walls and escaped. He went on a journey and came across four sights. These four sights included: an elderly person, a diseased person, a corpse, and a wandering acetic (which is a holy person). Throughout Siddhartha's journey he came to realize that the following 3 sights are inevitable: aging, sickness, and death. Siddhartha also learned that what he experienced behind the palace walls was not the same to what his father depicted outside the walls. With this eye opening journey, Siddhartha became inspired by the wandering holy man and decided he wanted to go out and try to understand this suffering that everyone was enduring in their lives. Siddhartha found all of the answers he was looking for through meditative practices. Once he learned why peoples lives were filled with suffering he became a Buddha.

References

67.8.141.184 (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC) TF

Sadhu!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

buddha

anyone know when buddha was born

Hjaghs (talk) 10:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It is in the article, Hjaghs.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Ascetic?

The lede inaccurately describes Siddhartha Gautama as an ascetic (śramaṇa). This accurately characterizes a few years of his young adult life, but does not accurately describe the full course of his life. His youth was luxurious. According to the "first discourse", his post-enlightenment lifestyle avoided either painful privation or vulgar luxury, but instead followed a "Middle Way." This is a serious error in the lede and contradicts the body of the text. Sbelknap (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I concur that the term 'ascetic' as a translation of śramaṇa is possibly misleading. I propose to write instead that he was "a leader within the śramaṇa movement".--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

“Sir, who am I to praise the ascetic Gotama? The ascetic Gotama is praised by the praised as best among devas and humans.” “What reasons does Master Vacch›yana see that he has such firm confidence in the ascetic Gotama?”

'The ascetic Gotama is a repeller who teaches his Dhamma for the sake of repulsion and thereby guides his disciples.'

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

So what are you trying to say, Joshua Jonathan?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

The word śramaṇa derives from Vedic texts. In the context of describing Gautama Buddha, a śramaṇa is one who labors, toils, or exerts themselves (for some higher or religious purpose). reference: Shults, Brett. "A Note on Śramaṇa in Vedic Texts." Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies 10 (2016).> I would suggest that for this wikipedia article that śramaṇa be translated as "monk" or "shaman" (a cognate of śramaṇa). Accordingly, I will make this change in the article. Sbelknap (talk) 04:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

"Monk" may be anachronistic. Maybe we should use the word Śramaṇa, followed by a sourced translation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, you already did. Good. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)