This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

What a bunch of twats we have on Wikipedia! Siddhartha Gautama, as the article should be named, was born as a Hindu and was a Hindu all his life. "Buddhism" as a religion emerged after his death. He was a kshatriya prince born in Ancient India (not Nepal you morons). He was born a Hindu and just because he didn't practice ritualistic Hinduism doesn't mean was not a Hindu. Funny you bastards never mention that and even have the temerity to write that "modern day Hinduism didn't exist back then"! This is a blatant error! The Vedas were written thousands of years before Siddhartha Gautama was born and to say that Hinduism didn't exist then is completely erroneous and offensive. To also call the article "Gautama Buddha" is highly misleading as it refers to the person SIDDHARTHA GAUTAMA! "Buddha" is a title you nincompoops! His name was not "Buddha". He was born in a HINDU KINGDOM as a HINDU and lived as a renunciate just like many HINDU RISHIS of those days. SHITIPEDIA as it should be called is edited by a bunch of biased and idiotic untouchables (westerners among others) and should NEVER be used as a useful reference to anything. I'm actively spreading the fact that this website is so hopeless that it should be avoided if someone wants real and reliable info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.39.64 ( talk) 19:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

From the article: "Siddhartha was born in Lumbini, Nepal." What is the source for this claim? Please remove unless source can be cited. Samson101 03:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Where do you think he was born?— Nat Krause^{( Talk!)} 03:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

According to ancient sculpture and carvings from Indian Mugal Samrat Ashoka found in Kapilvastu, Nepal; It is to confirm that he was born in Nepal from the parenthood of suddodhan and mayadevi. Who were the then king of kapilvastu. Later this place was destroyed by a neighboring state for the cause of water which flow between these two states. Buddha tried to stop the war three times but the forth time the war could not be stoped.

I don't know, you tell me. What I can reasonably say from common knowledge is that he was born in the Indian subcontinent. If I come across reliable published sources that tells me of a more precise location, I would be happy to know (and would add this information along with the source to the Gautama Buddha article). Samson101 03:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Read the Nalaka Sutta (Sn 3.11), and the Encyclopædia Britannica entry on Lumbini, and check any atlas. Andkaha^{( talk)} 09:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Then please cite the document that mentions the location of birth in the article, be it the Nalaka Sutta, the Britannica or the relevant atlas. It's not helpful to just state it here in the discussion page. Thanks. Samson101 03:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Any old book tells me Lumbini. Then look up any book, and it will tell you where Lumbini is located. In S Nepal, near the border with Uttar Pradesh. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 03:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Then cite that old book as the source (provide book author, year of publication, title and publisher). Do note that this applies not only to this point, but to other statements of fact. Read following userpage discussion (see below). Samson101 03:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, there are various things one can spend one's time on Wikipedia doing. There are numerous problems that confront us. I have no idea why you think it is important to focus our attention on this matter, rather on the multitude of more troublesome things we could be dealing with.— Nat Krause^{( Talk!)} 05:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

All that is being indicated is that there is a broader need to be able to provide sources for any factual statements. The example I pointed out here is just one conspicious example which caught my attention as I was reading the article. Contributors/editors may find it helpful to refer to FA/Good Article guidelines on this. Cheers Samson101 10:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where people get their sources from and claim that Buddha was born in India. Lumbini is a part of Nepal and always was. Samson101, have you visited Lumbini? Go there first and the truth will be revealed. Don't base your arguments on theoretical knowledge. There is heaps of archaeological evidence in Lumbini including the Asoka pillar where in is inscribed that Buddha was born in Lumbini, Nepal Spartathreehundred 07:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It is so disapointing that some Indians claim Buddha was born in India...and it's so hard to keep up with them because there are so many Indians(compare the size of India and Nepal) what is Nepal like? ant in front of an elephant! but we are not giving up. i am been to Lumbini several times and it says clearly Buddha was born here! and Lumbini is in Nepal. type lumbini in wikipidia and find out the map of nepal it clearly shows Lumbini is in Nepal! and Nepal was never taken over by India! can any one site sources claiming Nepal was taken over by India....by some genuine scholars who actually believes in research(Indians not allowed)! p.s. i am so glad mount everest is not on India's border otherwise they would clain that mount everest was theirs too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.56.3 ( talk) 04:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

People really need to turn some history pages here. Buddha was a Shakya Prince of country once called Kapilavastu which later became part of Modern Nepal and the place now famously called as Lumbini. Neither Nepal nor its part Lumbini was ever ruled by any other indian or british rulers. Nepal has always been an independent country. Karms ( talk) 00:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

To above posters: but you do know that Nepal did not exist until a few centuries ago right??? Also, during Buddha's time Kapilavstu was part of many of the kshatriya kingdoms of Aryavarta or as Ancient India was know to ancient Indians(today's south-asians) in the north. The name NEPAL doesnot exist in Buddhist or ancient hindu etymology. It is strictly a much recent construct(a few hundered years old) mainly to define the kingdom of Gurkhas. Besides the region of Kapilavastu is in Terai which is linguistically or culturally more a part of terai and eastern UP than mountain valleys of upper Nepal. Just because the British and the Gurkhas agreed to a boundary that left Lumbini a few KMS inside Nepal doesn't take away the fact that Siddhartha was an Kshatiya prince from Kapilavstu(a kingdom spanning across the current India/Nepal border). Most of his life was spent around Rajgir, Sarnath, kusinagar and bodh gaya all in Eastern UP or Bihar today but were in Magadha etc. at the time. Doesn't make him a UPite or Bihari, and yes entire Terai; of which Lumbini is a part, has been a part of every major Indian empire up until the Mughals. Its only after the treaty with the british that it was firmly placed a few kms inside Nepal, even by that measure much of the kingdom of shakyas was to the south of capital Lumbini which would be modern India. Anyhow we are not talking about modern India or Nepal, so this discussion is meaningless. Read HISTORY before claiming anything. Nepal is a much recent construct Kapilavastu was a kingdom spanning the present regions of Terai and Awadh in Nepal and India. Do you think the kingdom had its capital at the very border, which according to you lay at the present India/Nepal border and do you really think that Pokhara and Kathmandu were part of Shakya kingdom??? Now thats bit of a stretch.

Nepal as a unit did not exist until a few hundered years ago. Kapilavastu and the shakyas ruled an area that was the region of Kosala according to ancient text or the history pages you talk about, and we all know Kosala was pretty much todays Awadh, terai and the foothills of modern Nepal and yes Kapilavastu did span across both sides of Indo-Nepalese border, Lumbini is barely inside Nepal just a few kms from the border agreed to by Gurkhas and the british in which British gave much of the terai part of Oudh to the Gurkha kingdom of Nepal(again no relation to much ancient shakyas of Buddha) and settled the mountain border in their own favour. They did the same thing with the Dogra kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir, giving them the plains around Jammu while getting more strategic heights further north. In any event Shakya kingdom doesNOT correspond to modern Nepal but the middle terai of India/Nepal and foothills of modern Nepal and northern Oudh region of modern India. Also the entire Kosala of which Kapilavastu was a part of has been a part of every major Indian empire upto the Mughals, even early days of the British empire until the boundary was agreed to with the Nepalese kingdom and yes there is only one Lumbini and it is in modern Nepal(in a part which was ruled by every Indian empire worth its name). Earlier it was thought during intial excavations that Lumbini was a site first excavated on the Indian side of the present border, but its pretty much agreed to by all historians now after further excavations that the present Lumbini is the actual location. Again Nepal didnot exist back then and Kosala and Kapilavastu were part of Aryavarta, and the region was ruled by pretty much every major ancient and medieval Indian empire.

Just as meditation is exercised with the eyes half-open, we should look at national boundaries and ethnic boundaries with blurred discrimination, as makeshifts for conversation only. For that reason it seems reasonable to state the Buddha was born in ancient India in the area that became modern Nepal, or other mingled language resembling that. I defer to experts on the history for the precise wording, but it seems desirable to give everyone credit who deserves it. Generosity within the truth makes agreement far easier.

To above poster: Nepal was all the time there and still is and never was colonized by anybody in the world. It was unified by a King Prithivi Narayan Shah around 1700 and was much bigger than it is now. Nepal lost much of its territory in the war with Britain Anglo-Nepalese War (1814-1816) which ended up with Sugauli treaty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugauli_Treaty . There is nothing like Britain gave anything to Nepal. There was war between British force and Nepali force and they ended the war with the treaty. So don’t go and say British gave anything. If we are talking about birthplace of Buddha then lets write the name of the place where he was actually born.

Lets say someone was born in New-York, so when asked to this person about his birthplace then he will neither say North-America or tell

“””During the 17th century, Dutch trading posts established for the purchase of pelts from the Iroquois and other tribes expanded into the colony of New Netherlands. The first of these trading posts were Fort Nassau (1614, near present-day Albany); Fort Orange (1624, on the Hudson River just south of nowadays city of Albany (to replace the already mentioned Fort Nassau), developing into settlement Beverwijck (1647), and into nowadays Albany); Fort Amsterdam (1625, to develop into the town New Amsterdam which is present-day New York City); and Esopus, (1653, now Kingston). The British captured the colony during the Second Anglo-Dutch War and governed it as the Province of New York. Agitation for independence during the 1770s brought the American Revolution, which for New York was also a civil war.”” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_york#History

But he would simply say New York.

Other example Check out how birthplace of Jesus is written and also the location of Taj Mahal which existed before the existence of Current Israel and India respectively.

So, in my opinion it is right of the people to know the exact location of the birthplace of Buddha and also to know where it is located currently. So “Buddha was born in Kapilvastu in Rupandehi District, Lumbini Zone of Nepal.

Let’s not try to deny the fact and mislead the people to make them believe that birthplace of Buddha lies in the modern Indian Territory by calling the location Ancient India.

P.S: India was the name given by the British ruler to the sub-continent they ruled, so let’s not make a fuss about that name Nepal cannot be seen in the ancient Hindu or Buddhist writings. I can grantee you that Nepal can be traced back in the history before than mere 1947. I’m sorry if I offended any Indian for my argument. But I want you to understand the seriousness of the issue here.

And I would like to ask something to Indians. “How would you feel, if somebody would say that your father or grandfather is not an Indian because he was born during the British rule and India as country like now did not existed back then which means you are also not Indian because your father or grandfather was not one.

Peace

The lack of citations for various statements of fact made in this article is an impediment to it being considered as a good/reliable article or even as a Feature Article. This is unsatisfactory considering that this article is about an important subject. More work needs to be done in relation to citing credible publications to back the information provided in this article, wherever possible. It is apparent from the preceding userpage topic ("No source provided for claim about birthplace"), that there may be reliable sources of information out there, but these are strangely not being reported in the article. A casual reader could easily ask questions such as this:

"Is he really born in Location X? How did you know? Did someone find that out through archaeological study, or are there other forms of evidence published about it? If no source is cited then anyone could have mentioned any other place to be his place of birth, couldn't he/she?"

This puts the validity of the statement/s made in this article in question. How does one prevent the possibility of this happening? Simple: just cite a reliable source to back up the statement/s made. This is a basic rule in publishing scientific/factual works, which I hope will be adhered to in transforming this article into a high-quality article. Samson101 03:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

1. You don't need to keep an encyclopedic tone in talk pages; 2. This isn't the end of the world. Nobody's going to react like you say, and there are in fact plenty of people who do not even check if something is cited. The world is more trusting than that; 3. There are hundreds, if not thousands of better thinks we could focus on. Zazaban 16:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The question of whether the world is trusting or not is besides the point; if one aspires to write a good entry on an important subject such as the one being dealt with here, it's desirable to cite sources for factual statements. It's as simple as that. I just added a good and interesting source for the potential reader, and did it in about 30 seconds, so I don't think its a Herculean task to sigh and whine about. Citing sources should go hand in hand with the "other" foci involved in writing and improving this article, and I don't see the harm in pointing this out. You may like to refer to FA/Good Article guidelines (FA guideline (c), to be precise). Samson101 10:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Samson, thanks a lot for putting in some references. Really appreciated. Cheers!! =) Nay Min Thu 11:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Nay, it's a pleasure. Hope you find the references interesting to read themselves. Best wishes, Samson101 11:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Wondering if any of you experts here could suggest what should be done with the article Buddha's Relic and Jetavanaramya. I suggested that it should be merged here, but there is so much in that article that I do not understand that I cannot really be sure. There are no sources, no dates and there are many personages and places mentioned that cannot be linked to, perhaps because of transliteration problems. The text there also seems to contradict what is said in other articles about what happened to the Buddha's physical body after his parinirvana (e.g. that he was cremated). (I hope I'm using the right language, don't want to offend anyone.) If anyone could help out, would be very grateful. Itsmejudith 10:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

From lead paragraph: "He is universally recognised by Buddhists as the Supreme Buddha of our age." A reader may wonder, upon reading the above sentence, he is the Supreme Buddha in relation to what? So it would be good if it can be explained following this sentence what 'Supreme Buddha of our age' means (it can be explained, e.g., that the Supreme Buddha is the primary spiritual leader in the group of other Buddhas (enlightened ones) who may have existed in the past -- I'm not sure but you get my drift). Samson101 11:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"Supreme Buddha" is a translation of Samyaksambuddha, which a Buddhist term of art. It's somewhat of a digression to explain it in detail, but it's necessary to make the sentence accurate. It would be good if it linked to a page that could explain what it means.— Nat Krause^{( Talk!)} 01:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the statement is true: according to Peter Harvey's Introduction to Buddhism, Soka Gakkai regard Nichiren as the Supreme Buddha. Peter jackson 11:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is there nothing here about the Buddha being born from his mother's armpit? Or being protected during a storm by a many headed snake god thing? Or when he beat the crap out of Allah and Muhammed? This page needs a section on the mythos around the Buddha's life.

Absolutely. FasterPussycatWooHoo 12:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

They added the born from his mother's side part (good). They still don't have the snake part, or his first words (bad)! "In heaven and on earth, I alone am honored." Carl 12:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the mention of Siddhartha's supposed son Rahula included in citation 6 at the end of the paragraph? I'm curious as to this particular mention and how oddly enough nothing more appears to be said about this "Rahula" at any later point in the article. Is there no further mention of the individual in the source texts? ~ SotiCoto 195.33.121.133 17:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Rahula at the age of 20 became a monk in the first sangha.-- 131.238.92.62 12:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This article claims that he (The Buddha) set in motion the Wheel of Dharma while most, if not all, Buddhist texts claim that the 'wheel' already existed and was turning, albeit slowly. Maybe a better analogy would be that he (the Buddha) greased the Wheel of Dharma rather than set it in motion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Goodvibes ( talk • contribs) 11:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

You forgot to cite the texts that you speak of, and to provide a source for the choice of the word "grease". The Wheel of the Dhamma is a symbol or metaphor, not a physical thing, and as such it shouldn't be taken too literally. See e.g. Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta (SN 56.11) for the Pali Canon account of the setting in motion the Wheel of the Dhamma (this is also sorted out here). The Saccavibhanga Sutta (MN 141) mentions the setting in motion a number of times as well. Andkaha^{( talk)} 11:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The link cited for the dates of his birth and death does not corroborate the dates in the article. Arrow740 17:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The current wiki article says 563 BCE to 483 BCE, though some have suggested a date about a century later than this, and the cited article says (in concluding section) 400 BCE which is about a century later, just as the wiki article says... Andkaha^{( talk)} 12:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What religion was Gautama born into / raised in, if any? This should be included in the section of the article about his early life, I think. Static Sleepstorm 17:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Gautama Buddha was recently added to List of atheists. I notice he's not in Category:Atheists, nor is he described as an atheist in this article. This was cited in support of the claim, but I'm ambivalent about the source and what it says--that is, I'm not sure (1) if the author's claims are consistent with scholarly consensus, and (2) if the author actually makes the case that Gautama Buddha was an atheist in this article. Any help, such as direction toward reliable sources, would be appreciated. Thankyou. Nick Graves 02:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The primary source cited by the author makes it clear that the Buddha denied the existence of a Yahweh/Allah-type God. I said a little more at Talk:Buddhism. Arrow740 04:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the notation that the Buddha is an atheist, as in "disbelief in the existence of deity" (Marriam-Webster) or "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god" (OED). The Buddha does not deny the existence of deities, in fact he explicitly stated many times over, that there are beings in other planes of existences which may be invisible to most people but which do in fact exist. (See Maha-samaya Sutta for instance) The point about rebirth is central to the Buddhist notion. So neither the Dhamma nor the Buddha denies these. The only thing he claims is that as deities could themselves be deluded or uninformed it is important not to rely on them as a source or means to attend the highest liberation which he taught, known as Nibbana. 121.7.31.29 09:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the Pali Canon, Indra and Brahmin asked the Buddha to spread his word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.68.217 ( talk) 00:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Gautam Buddha born in 1894BC and died in 1814BC. please refer below link for more information. [1] [2]

Who wrote these nonsensical sites? Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Buddhawaslike Yahoo Group with 45 researched posts about Gotama Buddha Dhammapal 05:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"The Four Noble Truths: that suffering is an inherent part of existence;" - I believe it would be much more accurate to state, "There is suffering;", as many others do [3] [4] and, more simply, because the Buddha (reportedly) did not state that suffering was inherent to existence, [5]. Suffering is a conditioned phenomena, as is our existence, and as such neither have anything inherent about them. We only experience suffering while we are ignorant, in the same way I only experience the water while I'm in the swimming pool, and like water or a swimming pool are objects, suffering should be declared as such. If suffering was inherent then we could not escape it, and the rest of the Noble Truths would become untrue. Just a few lines later the concept of dependent origination is expounded, and also contradicts this earlier statement. I think this would be an important change as I have come across several people who have misinterpreted, or mistakenly believe, that the Buddha said that life was suffering. Since this is not true and also gives buddhism an ascetic slant that it (shouldn't) doesn't have, I propose the change. Iainspeed 00:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Since Nepal did not exist in its current state in those days, the term used to describe the land of the Buddha in those days is "ancient India" because that is the term used for the general subcontinental era of that time. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 02:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Buddha was a Shakya prince of country once called Kapilavastu which later became part of Modern Nepal and the place now famously called as Lumbini. Neither Nepal nor its part Lumbini was ever ruled by any other indian or british rulers. Nepal has always been an independent country. Karms ( talk) 00:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

To above poster: but you do know that Nepal didnot exist until a few centuries ago right??? Also, during Buddha's time Kapilavstu was part of many of the kshatriya kingdoms of Aryavarta or as Ancient India was know to Indians(today's south-asians) in the north. The name NEPAL doesnot exist in Buddhist or ancient hindu etymology. Its strictly a much recent construct mainly to define the kingdom of Gurkhas. Besides the region of Kapilavastu is in Terai which is linguistically or culturally more a part of eastern UP than mountain valleys of upper Nepal. Just because the British and the Gurkhas agreed to a boundary that left Lumbini a few KMS inside Nepal doesn't take away the fact that Siddhartha was an Kshatiya prince from Kapilavstu(a kingdom spanning across the current India/Nepal border). Most of his life was spent around Rajgir, Sarnath, kusinagar and bodh gaya all in Eastern UP or Bihar today but were in Magadha etc. at the time. Doesn't make him a UPite or Bihari, and yes entire Terai; of which Lumbini is a part, has been a part of every major Indian empire up until the Mughals. Its only after the treaty with the british that it was firmly placed a few kms inside Nepal, even by that measure much of the kingdom of shakyas was to the south of capital Lumbini which would be modern India. Anyhow we are not talking about modern India or Nepal, so this discussion is meaningless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.76.44 ( talk) 03:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

To above poster: may be you want to read what i have written above about buddha's birthplace.... before you go amok with your arguments.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzmand ( talk • contribs) 16:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there's been a longstanding consensus on this page to describe the Buddha's place of origin as "ancient India". Let's keep it that way and unprotect.— Nat Krause^{( Talk!· What have I done?)} 02:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The prominent sites of Bodhgaya(where Buddha got enlightenmenT) and Sarnath)(where He gave his first sermon), related with Buddha still are in present day India and Nepal in those days was part of Aryavarta - the kingdom of ancient Aryan kings. -- Redtigerxyz 11:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Lumbini is very close to the Indo-nepalese border today, this area was part of Oudh and was given with the rest of Terai to Nepal in lieu of the conquered Himalayan territories(by Nepalese army) by the British. In any event Nepal didnot exist during the time of Buddha or until a few centuries years ago. The whole area was part of hindu kingdoms of Aryavarta. Much of his life was spent in present day Indian states of Uttar Pradesh or Bihar, even if Uttarpradesh or Bihar become separate kingdoms/countries centuries down the road buddha will still be know as an Ancient Indian prince. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.126.199.122 ( talk) 21:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to replace the copyrighted Image: Avatars.jpg with Image:AvatarsVishnu.jpg, which is a PD-art image. As the page is protected, I can't do so. I request the adminstrators to do so.-- Redtigerxyz 06:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

In Buddha as viewed by other religions section, Hinduism sub-section; Main article: Buddhism and Hinduism should be replaced by Buddha as an Avatar of Vishnu. As the former discusses the wider simlarities and differences in the religions, while the latter discusses Buddha from the Hindu angle.-- Redtigerxyz 06:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be renamed, either to "The Buddha" or "Siddhartha Gautama." The current title is not as widely used as the other two, and in my experience is most commonly used where there is some ambiguity as to which Buddha is meant. Should we vote? Arrow740 22:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The title The Buddha would be highly confusing alongside the article Buddha. I think the current title is the best available option, since it incorporates "Buddha" into the title.— Nat Krause^{( Talk!· What have I done?)} 02:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

We can have "buddha" go to a disambiguation and "the buddha" go here. Most people know of him as "The Buddha" and Siddhartha Gautama was his name. Arrow740 05:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

So you propose to move the article buddha also?— Nat Krause^{( Talk!· What have I done?)} 21:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue there is the following: when the average person types in "Buddha," he is probably expecting to see the biography of the Buddha. So I would change the name of this article to "The Buddha," and make " buddha" go to the current disambigation page, where the difference between "buddha" and "the buddha" is quickly and clearly explained. Arrow740 22:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article on "Buddha" has a disambiguation link right at the start of it, for precisely that reason. So, I don't think it's a big problem.— Nat Krause^{( Talk!· What have I done?)} 22:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a big problem. The main issue for me is the name of this article. It should be either how most people think of him, or his name. It should be noted that Gautama Buddha isn't really a neutral title. It emphasizes the idea of his enlightenment. His name or the common title (which by being so common doesn't imply religious ideas as strongly) would be better. Arrow740 22:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the current title follows the logic of "split the difference" a bit. However, I think the point of it is simply that it's the most common name (which is ambiguous) plus an additional word to make it unambiguous.— Nat Krause^{( Talk!· What have I done?)} 23:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Putting a (to an unaware person) strange word in front of the common word renders a strange phrase that is at best the third most common way of referring to the man. Arrow740 23:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "the Buddha" is definitely the most common way to refer to this person. However, I think that it is a bit too ambiguous for us to use as the title of this article. I also think that "Gautama Buddha" is the most common way for secular writers to specify which buddha they mean while including the word "Buddha". In fact, ("Gautama Buddha" -wikipedia) gets more google hits than ("Siddhartha Gautama" -wikipedia) — although I think "Siddhartha Gautama" is probably more common among educated writers, I think this shows it is not a great deal more common. I think that it is greatly preferable to include the word "Buddha" in the title, to reduce confusion if it cannot be eliminated (which is the same reason that the article on the current Dalai Lama is at Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama rather than simply Tenzin Gyatso). The other option that includes "Buddha" is Shakyamuni Buddha, which would also be fine; but I think "Gautama Buddha" is more common in secular literature and it has the additional advantage of including part of the name "Siddhartha Gautama".— Nat Krause^{( Talk!· What have I done?)} 01:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nat Krause on this. I think its best to keep the name and add redirects and disambiguation pages as necessary. -- lk 05:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Gautama Buddha

• Support. Nat Krause^{( Talk!· What have I done?)} 02:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC) I am now undecided.— Nat Krause^{( Talk!· What have I done?)} 02:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support -- Nigelj 21:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Tony. TonyMPNS 21:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support -- Redtigerxyz 05:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support -- lk 05:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The Buddha

• Support. Arrow740 22:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Siddhartha Gautama

• Support. — Saposcat 04:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I would support this one. IvoShandor 18:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

• Theravada Buddhists usually say Gotama Buddha, Mahayanists Sakyamuni Buddha
• the name Siddhartha/Siddhattha doesn't occur in the earliest texts; it first appears in the Apadana
• how are other religions' founders treated?
• I have seen it stated (i can't remember where) that the name would actually have been Gotama Siddhattha —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter jackson ( talk • contribs) 11:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, if I may toss in my half-penny's thought, my mind often goes into spastic fits when it finds "Buddha" (intending to refer to the Pali Canon's protagonist) linking to the current Buddha article on all the Buddhas and generic notions of Buddhahood. For me, based on my largely Theravadan and prior Zen practices and studies, it seems so disproportionately inappropriate . My druthers would be to move the current Buddha article to one named Buddhas or Buddhahood, and to move this article to Buddha. (Once or twice I've gone through articles linking to Buddha and, when appropriate, pipe them here; it seems like such an obvious problem.) Otherwise, no vote for me; given the choices above, I'm content that the currrent The Buddha page redirects here. Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 20:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the article currently at buddha could also be moved to sammasambuddha.— Nat Krause^{( Talk!· What have I done?)} 20:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Nat, I like and very much appreciate the suggestion. I'd be interested in seeing if anyone has significant objections, qualms or alternatives. Thanks again, Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 21:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, at the present moment, buddhahood doesn't even redirect to buddha.— Nat Krause^{( Talk!· What have I done?)} 21:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

More thoughts:

• sammasambuddha or samyaksambuddha?
• in either case, this is not what most people would look for
• most people looking up Buddha would be expecting to find the Buddha, not the abstract concept of Buddhas generally

So I vote for renaming this article either Buddha or the Buddha, with the other article renamed Buddhas. Peter jackson 11:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Nat, Peter, and others, great on-going feedback. I'll solicit additional comments (to be added here) from watchers of the Talk:Buddha page as well as add a tickle to Arrow's existing solicitation on Talk:Buddhism. Kudos too to Arrow for initiating this discussion. Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 18:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of renaming this page to 'Buddha'; it fits with the WP guideline of naming articles according to the most common usage, and sticks to the principle of least surprise. 'Buddhas' is also probably a good compromise for the existing article; another thought that crossed my mind was 'Buddha (Buddhism)' to reflect the distinction between common usage and the more specific sense used in Buddhist texts. 'Buddhahood' also seems like a good idea. Samyaksambuddha is perhaps too technical and specific- there will need to be some discussing of Pratyekabuddhas, as the current Buddha article does, in there somewhere. -- Clay Collier 19:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Other on-line encyclopedia's "Buddha" entries

FWIW, on another talk page, someone seemed to indicate that the current arrangement is consistent with "standard usage in encyclopedias." Contrary to this uncited claim, when one looks up "Buddha" on the on-line Encyclopedia Britannica, they'll find at http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9105943/Buddha an article that starts:

Buddha

(Sanskrit“awakened one”)

flourished c. 6th–4th century BCE, Lumbini, near Kapilavastu, Shakya republic, Kosala kingdom [now in Nepal]

died, Kusinara, Malla republic, Magadha kingdom [now Kasia, India]

clan name (Sanskrit) Gautama or (Pali) Gotama, personal name (Sanskrit) Siddhartha or (Pali) Siddhatta the founder of Buddhism, one of the major religions and philosophical systems of southern and eastern Asia. Buddha is one of the many epithets of a teacher who lived in northern India sometime between the 6th and 4th centuries…

Thus making the above changes would appear to make us consistent with at least one important encyclopedic source. Does anyone have access to other comparable encyclopedic texts that they could share here? Thanks, Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 00:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the start of the entry for "Buddha" in the 2007 Columbia Encyclopedia (6th ed.) found at http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Buddha.html:

Buddha

Buddha [Skt.,=the enlightened One], usual title given to the founder of Buddhism . He is also called the Tathagata [he who has come thus], Bhagavat [the Lord], and Sugata [well-gone]. He probably lived from 563 to 483 BC The story of his life is overlaid with legend, the earliest written accounts dating 200 years after his death ....

Just another easily accessible on-line example. Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 01:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"Buddha" in the World Encyclopedia (2005) from Oxford University Press according to http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O142-Buddha.html:

Buddha (Enlightened One) Title adopted by Gautama Siddhartha (c.563–c.483 bc), the founder of Buddhism. Born at Lumbini, Nepal, Siddhartha was son of the ruler of the Sakya tribe, and his early years were spent in luxury. At the age of 29, he realized that human life is little more than suffering. He gave up his wealth and comfort, deserted his wife and small son, and took to the road as a wandering ascetic. He travelled south, and sought truth in a six-year regime of austerity and self-mortification. After abandoning asceticism as futile, he sought his own middle way towards enlightenment. The moment of truth came in c.528 bc, as he sat beneath a banyan tree in the village of Buddha Gaya, Bihar, India. After this incident, he taught others about his way to truth. The title ‘buddha’ applies to those who have achieved perfect enlightenment. Buddhists believe that there have been several buddhas before Siddhartha, and there will be many to come. The term also serves to describe a variety of Buddha images.

It appears to me that this entry starts off with material that we have in Gautama Buddha and then includes two lines towards the end regarding material from our current Buddha article. I think this prioritization of information is worth our consideration. Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 01:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English (2007; Oxford U. Press; at http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O999-buddha.html) seems to follow the same ordering at the World Encyclopedia (althought this might be due to an editorial process of identifying names prior to nouns, etc.:):

Buddha / bd; bd/ (often the Buddha) a title given to the founder of Buddhism, Siddartha Gautama (c.563c.460 bc). Born an Indian prince, he renounced wealth and family to become an ascetic, and after achieving enlightenment while meditating, taught all who came to learn from him.

∎ [as n.] (a buddha) Buddhism a person who has attained full enlightenment. ∎ a statue or picture of the Buddha.

Lastly (for me at least, at the moment), A Dictionary of World History (2000, Oxford U. Press) uses the following:

Buddha A title given to successive teachers (past and future) of Buddhism, although it usually denotes the founder of Buddhism, Siddhartha Gautama (c.563 BC-c.480 BC). Although born an Indian prince (in what is now Nepal), he renounced his kingdom, wife, and child to become an ascetic, taking religious instruction until he attained enlightenment (nirvana) through meditation beneath a bo tree in the village of Bodhgaya. He then taught all who wanted to learn, regardless of sex, class, or caste, until his death. ‘Buddha’ means ‘enlightened’ in Sanskrit.

Thus it leads with information about multiple Buddhas but states that the term "usually denotes the founder of Buddhism."

Perhaps these last few entries would suggest a disambiguation page? (Personally, I'm definitely open to this.) Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 01:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

And, if I may (really, last time on this page tonight), in regards to the issue of WP user expectation, I think one gauge would be to go to the "What links here" page for Buddha at Special:Whatlinkshere/Buddha. Just glancing through the "A"-name entries, it appears that the majority (4?) incorrectly assume the "Buddha" refers to the "historical" person, while a couple (1 or 2?) seem to refer to Buddhist statues and a couple (1 or 2?) refer to the actual current article's content (multiple Buddhas, Buddhahood, etc.). Thus, even given the current article itself -- surely an obstacle to people erroneously linking to it -- a significant number (majority???) of WP articles linking to the term "Buddha" assume it deals with the founder of Buddhism. (I realize I repeat myself but I'm trying to address an uncited claim by an off-page WP editor.) Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 01:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I also vote for renaming this article either Buddha or the Buddha, with the other article renamed Buddhas. Good spadework everyone. Arrow740 02:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Larry makes a compelling argument. It's particularly interesting that other Wikipedia articles are so frequently mislinking. That's a real problem. Still, titling this article simply Buddha seems a bit sloppy to me. How can we refer to other buddhas once we have committed to calling Shakyamuni simply "the Buddha"? A parallel might be drawn to the article on Julius Caesar, since there were many other men named Julius Caesar (which is, after all, a surname), and even various others named Gaius Julius Caesar; but, the Julius Caesar is by far the best known. On the other hand, Amitabha Buddha has much more significance than any of the other Julii Caesares do.— Nat Krause^{( Talk!· What have I done?)} 03:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a different situation. "Caesar" doesn't refer to any one man. In common usage, "The Buddha" does. Arrow740 04:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that Gautama Buddha is the best name as this name (and simply "Buddha"; but an article called Buddha exists about the other Buddhas; a concept in Buddhism) is widely known outside Buddhism for the founder of the religion. "The Buddha" may be confusing due to existence of Buddha article. The term "Shakyamuni" Buddha is known by me but I (a non-Buddhist) was ignorant that it was associated with "Gautama Buddha". About "Siddharatha Gautama"; I had never heard the term though i knew Gautama Buddha was prince Siddharatha before his enlightenment. -- Redtigerxyz 05:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, the proposal involves changing the name of the article currently called "buddha" to "buddhas." Arrow740 05:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Another thing that can be done is redirect "Buddha" to "Gautama Buddha" as he is the main Buddha in Buddhism and the mostly widely known Buddha outside Buddhism(or only known Buddha in case you were like me; who did not know about other Buddhas before reading WP articles). The dictionary entries also support this statement.-- Redtigerxyz 13:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hallo everyone. I support keeping the title "Gautama Buddha" for this article. I think then it is clear that it refers to the historical Buddha and indeed the one that most of us probably think of when we speak of the Buddha. Also, in some Mahayana sutras, it is made clear that all of the Buddhas are in fact Gautama Buddha (Shakyamuni Buddha)! As for the term "buddha" in a general sense, I think the current article (under that name) deals with that quite well. Best wishes to all. From Tony. TonyMPNS 18:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ever Good-Hearted Tony -

Thanks so very much for adding your much valued voice to this discussion. You know I definitely appreciate it.

In light of the information above about other encyclopedias (e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica) and dictionaries as well as the implicit expectations of the Buddha article's linking pages ( Special:Whatlinkshere/Buddha), what is your view on:

• Redtigerxyz's proposal that we keep this article as is but redirect Buddha here (and thus, as Arrow underlines, move the current Buddha article to Buddhas or something similar per Nat, Peter and Clay)?
• or, another alternative that would maintain your preference would be to keep this page as is and to make the Buddha page a dab page.

(Among other things, both these solutions would obviate the need to modify all of the pages that link to this page.) Any thoughts?

• Thank you so much, dear Larry, for your kind comments. You are always unswervingly helpful. I have to be honest and say that I myself am pretty happy with the two articles as they stand - "Gautama Buddha" and "Buddha" - but I do think that we definitely should have a disambiguation link to "Buddha" at the very beginning of the "Gautama Buddha" article. I don't like the proposed article title, "Buddhas" (plural) at all. It strikes me as forced, strange and unnatural (not the sort of thing I would look for or expect to see in an encyclopaedia). But that's just my gut reaction. I don't mind if people choose to have that title - I don't violently oppose it! As said above, however, I much prefer keeping "Gautama Buddha" (with the clear link at the beginning to the more generalised "Buddha") and the "Buddha" article. Sorry if I am not being very helpful! All warm wishes to everyone. From Tony. TonyMPNS 11:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks once again to all for the sincere, respectful and cooperative efforts! Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 18:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

We should really be addressing Clay Collier's point: "I like the idea of renaming this page to 'Buddha'; it fits with the WP guideline of naming articles according to the most common usage, and sticks to the principle of least surprise." Arrow740 04:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I hear you and also I regret if, in my rush to add external encyclopedic sources, I unintentionally covered over Clay's excellent points.

I guess what I'm struggling with within myself about this can perhaps be summarized by the aforementioned "What links here" list of the Buddha article. While the unscientific sample I identified had a majority of links assuming that the article was about "Gautama Buddha," about a quarter (or eighth?) referred to all Buddhas and a quarter (or eighth?) to Buddha statues. Thus, it would appear that we might confound the expectations of 25% to 50% of WP readers/editors by re-defining the Buddha article as "Gautama Buddha." Also, personally, I really am disinclined to override what appears to me to be a strong expectation among at least some Mahayana WP participants that the article should be about all Buddhas. Thus, I have this nagging desire to make Buddha a disambiguation page. Lastly, frankly, I think a disambiguation page would less likely be reverted and thus has the possible benefit of being a more stable change.

Gee, which way is the wind blowing for me today? Maybe after sleep I'll feel differently. Can you or anyone else make a strong case (which honestly I would readily welcome) for not making Buddha into a disambiguation page. Thanks so much, Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 06:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

On the point a few lines up about participants; WP isn't for participants; it's for readers.

on the Caesar analogy: Caesar without qualification is understood as referring to the particular gaius julius Caesar who was assassinated in 44BC. Peter jackson 11:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Peter, I think your statement is certainly supported in the WP guidelines, such as:

"Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." (from WP:Naming)

I haven't taken the time yet to read through many of WP's naming conventions. Two statements that caught my biased eye though were:

"... a term that may be used to describe several different search terms may require a disambiguation page." (from WP:Naming)

"If we ignore potential ambiguity, the ideal of simplicity can be at odds with the ideal of precision." (from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common_names))

I think a dab page will ensure precision. Moreoever, from a utilitarian perspective, it might frustrate many people a little bit but should outrage fewer than a link to an unexpected article. The dab page could be as simple as:

FWIW, I inserted Buddha (general) for what we've been discussing as Buddhas, etc., in light of TonyMPNS's most recent statement. (Perhaps a parallel idea would be to rename this current article Buddha (person)?)

From the aforementioned encyclopedic standpoint, I think one can readily assert that the "scholarly" or "expert" thing would be to move this article to Buddha and move the current Buddha article ... elsewhere. FWIW, the above dictionary entries seem to support the dab page approach, but I know this is not a dictionary. Since I have a visceral desire to minimize harm to others, I'm inclined to use a dab page for the "utilitarian" reason stated above; but, I defer to and would support whatever rational decision you all might decide upon. So, is someone ready to sum up:

• the most rational expert decision (e.g., whether to move this article or not, whether to redirect, whether to dab)?
• the choices (or best choice) for where to move the current Buddha article?
• the best way to ensure stability of any change (e.g., should we more clearly post our summation on Talk:Buddha and wait a week for feedback. [Frankly, I've been waiting over a year for this and never expected it to occur, so waiting another week is not much to me :-) ].)

Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 18:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Some more thoughts. Someone above referred to Mahayana. This may bemore important than I first thought. Buddha to many Buddhists may mean, not Gotama/Gautama, but his sambhogakaya (Nichiren, perhaps Tendai), Amitabha (Pure Land), Vairocana (Shingon) ... Maybe disambiguation? Or just amalgamate the articles? Peter jackson 11:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The article should be primarily a biography of the historical figure, and the name should reflect that. Arrow740 00:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter, interesting points. If we were to go ahead with a dab page, could you (or anyone else?) suggest an appropriate line regarding the sambhogakaya? Also, would such a (proposed) dab page include mention of Maitreya somehow?

Arrow, again, we are indebted to you for being the primary mover behind this progression. And I think you can support your contention by reasoning:

1. WP guidelines entail naming articles according to the most common usage (per Clay)
2. Citations from other scholarly on-line encyclopedias and dictionaries confirm that "Buddha" most often refers to the founder of Buddhism (who may or may not be different from the Pali Canon protagonist -- thanks to Schopen & PeterJ ;-) )

The proposal for a dab page could be supported rationally with:

1. WP guidelines state "a term that may be used to describe several different search terms may require a disambiguation page" ( WP:Naming)
2. Citations from a number of other scholarly on-line encyclopedias and dictionaries confirm that "Buddha" primarily refers to the founder of Buddhism but also can refer to all "those who have achieved perfect enlightenment," Buddhas identified by the canon as existing prior to Gautama Buddha, and to Buddha statues.

So, what is the calculus by which we determine which set of reasons is best? In other words, what reasons would you use to convince a person with the alternate viewpoint that your viewpoint is superior. I believe there is room to go either way given that, to me, based on my skimpy reading of WP guidelines, the WP guidelines are necessarily vague and thus there is room here for rational disagreement, dialogue and, hopefully, consensus building. (If not, I would like to suggest that we make a choice that is most compassionate, but that is just me using something like Buddhist values for a non-Buddhist medium.)

Arrow, does what I write make sense? (Or am I just spewing gibberish as I am wont to do?) Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 03:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for working so hard to build concensus. I first came across this article when I was new to wikipedia and hadn't really been exposed to Buddhism yet. I was confused by the title and momentarily wondered if it was the right page before remembering I had heard the Hindi version before. If my experience is typical, then most non-Buddhists are likely confused by the title. This is my main reason for trying to change the article to something more recognizable. As long as the title of this article is changed to The Buddha, I don't have strong feelings about whether Buddha should redirect here or go to the disambiguation. Arrow740 06:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the suggestion to make a disambiguation page is very good, to avoid confusion about the Buddha and Buddhas etc... Also, Buddha is a much more appropraite name for an article about the buddha, and buddhahood is a much better name for an article about, really, buddhahood. I would suggest doing th voting again, these alternatives were not present. The voting should really be about the pair of articles together. Greetings, Sacca 08:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sacca! So glad you could join us. (I was just admiring a number of your uploaded photos at the Jetavana article this past weekend. My kalyanna mitta enjoyed them too!)

Frankly, I was thinking we could separate this into two (or three?) separate votes at this point, possibly on two different talk pages. My personal deduction at the moment is that the need to move the current Buddha article to another entitled page does not require consensus; if I may be blunter than usual, the current Buddha article's move appears to be essentially required by WP policy that a page title should be associated with its "most common usage" (per Clay -- can someone point to a WP policy page for an exact quote?) or to a dab page if there is significant ambiguity. The aforementioned encyclopedic quotes -- thus far unchallenged -- seem to clearly indicate that the current Buddha article's content is not consistent with the term "Buddha"'s most common usage. (The Special:Whatlinkshere/Buddha also appears to support this.)

Thus, I see two or three votes:

1. Where to move the current Buddha article? (e.g., Buddhas, Buddha (general), Buddhahood, sammasambuddha, samyaksambuddha, etc. Did I miss any?) I think this vote can occur at the current Talk:Buddha page (at the same time of citing the clear basis for the need to move the article).
2. Once the current Buddha article moves, there is a vote as to whether to make the newly available page-space a dab or to move this article there. (This discussion can continue or be tidied up here, yes? no?)
3. If Buddha becomes a dab, then there can be a vote (perhaps a re-vote?) in regards to whether or not keep or change this article's ( Gautama Buddha) title. (I see this discussion continuing here.)

Does this seem appropriate? If no one objects in the next day or so (and, preferably, if someone could cite the WP policy page re: "most common usage"), I can act on #1 above then (unless someone beats me to it, which I would welcome). Just some thoughts, Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 19:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Larry, I am very impressed with your research on this subject. So it seems Wikipedia makes sense after all! (to have these guidelines). I would suggest Buddhahood, as it is what I am most familiar with, certainly within theravada tradition Buddhhood would be the obvious choice. I wonder what our mahayanic friends think of this, though.

greeting Greetings, Sacca 12:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sacca, thanks! With metta, Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 21:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed post to Talk:Buddha

I'd like to post something like the following on the Talk:Buddha page but would value any feedback. I plan to post it under the existing Talk:Buddha#Renaming this article and moving current Gautama Buddha article here? entry.

 

----- Proposed post to Talk:Buddha -----

As indicated above, for a week there has been on-going discussion on Talk:Gautama Buddha regarding the content of this current article, Buddha.

The main points have been:

1. WP naming conventions (such as WP:Name and Wikipedia:Naming conflict) indicate that the naming of articles should be done according to the most common usage of the name.
2. WP naming conventions provide a number of ways in which names disputes could be resolved (see, for instance, Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Identification_of_common_names_using_external_references). The one that seems most pertinent and most transparent here was to reference other on-line scholastic, non-POV reference materials, particularly encyclopedias.
3. Five reference sources were selected: the first was the on-line Encyclopedia Britannica; the remaining were found based on a Google search for "Buddha +encyclopedia -Wikipedia." Excerpts from these references can be found at Gautama Buddha#Other on-line encyclopedia's "Buddha" entries. Overwhelming, these other references indicate that "Buddha" primarily denotes "the founder of Buddhism." These references generally indicated that "Buddha" could also be applied to, secondarily, "those who have achieved perfect enlightenment" ("a buddha") and, thirdly, Buddha statues.
4. Furthermore, it has been noted that this article's current Special:Whatlinkshere/Buddha list has a significant number (perhaps the majority of) links from other articles that (despite this article's current content and editors' past efforts to correctly pipe articles to Gautama Buddha) assume that this article is about the founder of Buddhism.
5. In addition, if one were to do a Google search on "Buddha -Wikipedia," a simple scan of the first several pages of this search shows that the vast majority of non-commercial hits (e.g., skipping over items such as "Buddha Bar") assume that "Buddha" refers to the founder of Buddhism, not the general concept of Buddha or to other buddhas.

Therefore, to be consistent with WP naming conventions, it appears logical then that this namespace, Buddha, be used either:

(a) solely for an article regarding the founder of Buddhism (that is, the current Gautama Buddha article); or,

(b) a disambiguation page (the alternative for which there appears to be the most support at this time) such as:

The question now before us here is: What to rename this article. Suggestions put forth on Talk:Gautama Buddha#Name include:

• Buddhas
• Buddha (general)
• Buddhahood
• sammasambuddha or samyaksambuddha
• Buddha (Buddhism)

What title do you think is best? It is hoped that a choice can be agreed upon within the next week.

----- end of proposed post to Talk:Buddha -----

 

Is this sufficient? Thanks for any feedback, Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 22:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Added to the above text a Google search option to the list of means for ascertaining the "most common usage" of a word. Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 16:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

What's so special about the Buddhas mentioned in the Pali Canon? There are thousands of others mentioned in Buddhist literature. Peter jackson 10:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Peter - thanks for the feedback. Sounds like I might have misunderstood what you might have been suggesting previously. Would it be better if the middle three bullets were combined into something like:

• Others who have achieved perfect enlightenment (see Buddhas), including: one of twenty eight Buddhas mentioned in the Pali Canon; the sambhogakaya (Nichiren, perhaps Tendai); Amitabha (Pure Land), Vairocana (Shingon); and, the future buddha, Maitreya.

Honestly, the whole sambhogakaya concept goes way over my head so I'm uncertain how to include it. I guess I could just lop off the "including" list but, obviously, I'm not one for brevity. What would you (and others?) recommend? (Explicit wording would be very much appreciated!)

Thanks, Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 17:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, there's nothing special about the 28 Buddhas. Peter jackson 11:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Peter - as always, thanks for the feedback. Since you did not offer an alternative wording, I'm going to interpret your words as indicating that you think that the list of 28 Buddhas should be deleted. Would it be appropriate then to delete specific reference to the specific Buddhas that you subsequently mentioned as well? If not, could you educate me on the basis for the distinction? Either way, given the time that's passed, I'm going to move ahead and post the above to Talk:Buddha shortly (deleting reference to the list of 28 and other Buddhas) and will start a new subheading below regarding a proposed dab page. Thanks so much again. Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 21:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

What's special about the 28 buddhas, I suppose, is that their names appear in the nikayan texts, so they are therefore the only buddhas who are accepted by all existing Buddhist groups. On the other hand, what's special about Amitabha is that, when someone (a randomly selected Buddhist) says "Buddha", if they are referring to someone other than Shakyamuni, it's probably most likely to be Amitabha. I would guess that Maitreya is the second most likely, even though this technically incorrect (Maitreya is currently a bodhisattva).— Nat Krause^{( Talk!· What have I done?)} 02:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, after waiting several days, I've started the vote on renaming the current Buddha article at Talk:Buddha#Renaming_vote. Please vote if you have a preference. I appreciate your all's continued participation in and support for this process. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 16:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Dalai Lama

By the way, what do we think about the example of the article on the Dalai Lama? The vast majority of people, when looking for information on "the Dalai Lama" will be thinking specifically of the current one, and they will very likely be basically ignorant of the various other Dalai Lamas. They will also very likely not know the current Dalai Lama's personal name, Tenzin Gyatso. And yet, the article Dalai Lama is not an article about Tenzin Gyatso, or even a disambiguation page. It is about the Dalai Lamas in general. This strikes me as a similar case. Do we also conclude that Dalai Lama should be moved?— Nat Krause^{( Talk!· What have I done?)} 04:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we need to primarily cater to non-Buddhists. Arrow740 05:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Intuitively, I agree with Arrow (and, perhaps implicitly, Nat? -- BTW, anyone want to tackle the Christ article given our current analytic approach ? :-) ). I think that a significant difference between "Buddha" and "Dalai Lama" might be what is found in other authoritative encyclopedias. For instance, here's a link to the Encyclopedia Britannica's "Dalai Lama" entry, which appears to give a general description ("head of the dominant Dge-lugs-pa (Yellow Hat) order of Tibetan Buddhists ...") and then goes through the first seven and then last two Dalai Lamas in chronological order. Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 17:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose one problem with moving Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama to simply Dalai Lama would be that it might not be the most conducive toward the reader's long-term understanding of the situation if it obscures the existence of the previous Dalai Lamas. This might lead to confusion in the future when reading about Tibetan history. However, that situation is not exactly analogous to this one—the difference that recently occurred to me is that "Dalai Lama" is a discrete historical institution, whereas "Buddha" is a general concept about which different parties may have strikingly different opinions.— Nat Krause^{( Talk!· What have I done?)} 02:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Buddha dab page

While discussion (if any) at Talk:Buddha proceeds regarding its pending (I think?) name change, I thought it might be useful to continue the discussion here about a tentative dab page replacement for it. (The dab page is "tentative" because I want to allow anyone who might still feel strongly that this page, Gautama Buddha, should be moved to Buddha to feel comfortable voicing such a view.) Based on the aforementioned encyclopedia dictionary articles ( #Other on-line encyclopedia's "Buddha" entries) as well as my understandng of the above feedback from PeterJ and others, the current proposed dab I think is somethink like this:

The first sentence's "Gautama Buddha" should be linked to whatever name this current article takes. The first bulleted sentence should be somehow linked to whatever article name the current Buddha article will be moved to (whether Buddhahood, Buddhas, Buddha (general), sammasambuddha, Buddha (Buddhism), etc.).

I'm in no way attached to any part of this proposed dab page and would very much welcome thoughtful feedback? Thanks so much, Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 21:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, dear Larry, for all your hard and excellent work - and to all the other editors too. I think your proposal above is very good. One point I would alter, however: I don't think it's quite correct (grammatically and semantically) to say that the term "Buddha" refers to "Buddhahood" - since the former is a person, while the latter is a state or condition of being. Perhaps we could slightly modify your sentence and write: "'Buddha' may also refer to any person who has achieved buddhahood." Does that seem acceptable to you, Larry? And to the other editors? Thank you again for your super hard work. Best wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 21:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Good-hearted and wise Tony, you are 110% correct. Here's the prototype with your excellent suggested text:

Thanks so much! Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 03:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hallo again dear Larry. Thank you so very much for your kind comments above. I am delighted that you find my suggestion of help. I really appreciate your words of support and all your multi-faceted, superb work and efforts on behalf of Wiki-Buddhism. Many thanks again, Larry! Best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 09:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your efforts on this, Larry. I think that, if there is to be a disambiguation pages, it would be clearer to mention a few examples of other buddhas, as the earlier version of your suggestion did. However, it is impossible to give a complete list here (probably impossible anywhere), so there's no need to go to much length. I would think mentioning Amitabha and the 28 Buddhas would suffice. Incidentally, veneration of Amitabha is not limited to the Pure Land school—it occurs widely in Mahayana Buddhism, even in Tibetan Buddhism, outside the East Asian sphere of influence.— Nat Krause^{( Talk!· What have I done?)} 03:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks Nat! Would the following be satisfactory?

If not, please feel free to cut and paste and/or wordsmith as you deem appropriate. (I certainly trust your judgment.) Thanks so much again! Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 04:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one who's forgotten or overlooked that there is already a Buddha (disambiguation) page? Assuming we go ahead with replacing the current Buddha article with a dab page, should we just copy/move this existing Buddha (disambiguation) page to Buddha? Perhaps the above suggested dab could be incorporated into the existing Buddha (disambiguation) page? (Outside of references to Buddha statues in the above and to the three types of Buddha in the existing page, the major difference to the opening sentences appears to be one of emphasis, perhaps revealing the difference between Theravada and Mahayana perspectives? The existing page also, commendably, has significant material on non-spiritual and non-Buddhist references to "Buddha.") Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 21:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I've tried to incorporate the above tentative dab information into the existing Buddha (disambiguation) page. I'd like to recommend that this existing page become the one we move to Buddha after the current Buddha article is renamed. Any objections? Thanks so much either way, Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 16:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Larry. Just discovered this discussion. Do we have a consensus for your recommendation that Buddha become a disambiguation page? Dhammapal 11:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dhammapal - Well, it's been almost a week since, in the entry just prior to yours, I asked for objections and no one's objected. In addition, in all the discussion above, only one person appeared initially to have concern -- specifically wanting this page to replace the current Buddha page -- but they subsequently simply stated the desire that this page be renamed "The Buddha." So, I think we can say that we thusfar have no lasting objections. If you'd like to start an explicit vote (e.g., with one option being to replace the current Buddha article with this article and with the other option being to replace the current Buddha page with the current Buddha (disambiguation) page [or perhaps the above tentatively offered dab page]), please feel free to do so. If you (and others!) would like to vote on what to rename the current Buddha article, then I'd like to encourage your voting at Talk:Buddha#Renaming_vote. Let me know if I've missed something. Please share with us any additional thoughts you might have on this. Thanks so much. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 18:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Larry. I think we have consensus that Buddha become a disambiguation page. Dhammapal 00:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dhammapal - I very much hope you are right. I guess we'll find out soon. I hope to draw the Talk:Buddha#Renaming_vote to a close in the next few days. Then we'll have the opportunity to see if any of this talk's implementation sticks :-) Relatedly, of course, if anyone objects to replacing Buddha with Buddha (disambiguation), please speak now or afterwards and, personally, I would not oppose to someone's subsequently moving this article Gautama Buddha there. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 18:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Buddha moved to Buddha (general)

Just to follow-up, based on the vote at Talk:Buddha#Renaming_vote, the up-until-fifteen-minutes-ago Buddha page has been moved to Buddha (general). ( Buddhahood is also now a redirect to Buddha (general).) As perhaps many of you could have predicted, I regrettably need admin assistance to move the current Buddha (disambiguation) page to the Buddha space. So I've put in the formal request at WP:RM and have followed the procedure re: tagging Talk:Buddha (disambiguation) and starting yet another thread at Talk:Buddha_(disambiguation)#Requested_move. I'm hoping this latter move can take place relatively quickly. (Thanks for your all's patience!)

Thanks to the many of you who have been supportive of this process and shared your much-valued thoughts and opinions. I am grateful. Hopefully these initial moves might even last awhile (though maybe when I wake up tomorrow it will all be reverted....) My best to you all, Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 09:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. In case anyone might be concerned, I plan to start reviewing the 2500 links to Buddha over the next few days to try to sort out which ones should now link where.

P.P.S. Oops. Turns out it appears that the majority of links -- as we previously surmised -- that go to Buddha should actually go to the current Gautama Buddha. Given the pending article moves (title changes), etc., I'm inclined to not diligently go through the aforementioned link list now but instead to make it an occasional background task over the next few months. Any objections? Thanks, Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 05:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sammasambuddha is suffering from a circular redirect. There is currently no way to find the article by typing in either Buddha or Sammasambuddha. Can someone who knows more fix this? thanks -- lk 05:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I just changed it to redirect to the current Buddha (general), consistent with my understanding of its redirect's initial intent. (Hopefully in the next few days the demi-gods of WP:RM will see fit to move Buddha (disambiguation) to Buddha thus reducing any confusion such as this.)

LK - thanks for your recent contributions to WP Buddhism. If you don't mind my saying, you seem to be analytically sharp, good-natured and high energy. Your participation is certainly appreciated. Best regards, Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 05:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Can someone check the sources cited as not accepting the shorter chronology? I have a feeling the Schumann book is just a reprint of an old publication, so irrelevant here. Also, I did see an article by Wayman arguing for the long chronology, & it made no mention of the arguments of Bechert, Gombrich, Norman, Cousins &c for a shorter chronology, responding only to Japanese scholars. This would also be irrelevant. Peter jackson 11:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The article seems to make no attempt to distinguish the 2. Peter jackson 11:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Peter - what would be good sources for facts concerning the human being? Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 16:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing special about this topic. You have to start with the usual sources (Harvey, Gethin &c) & look carefully to see what they regard as established historical fact. My guess is very lttle. Peter jackson 10:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my concern :-) Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 17:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

In principle, Peter, I strongly agree. We should always try to distinguish fact from legend. However, when you go back far enough "fact" is in short supply. So, I definitely think we should distinguish between different types of legend about the Buddha where possible. We already do this to some extent – for instance, so far, no one so far as I'm aware has suggested that we should report the series of miracles celebrated on Chötrül Düchen, even though some Buddhists presumably believe that they happened. What are we going to include, though, that is fact? There are some claims that we can guess are likely to be true—for instance, everyone agrees that the Buddha was a Shakya and I assume this to be true because I don't know of any reason anyone had to lie about it. But, on the other hand, maybe someone in the past did lie about it for reasons that have since been forgotten. There is, to my knowledge, no contemporary evidence implying—let alone proving—that the Buddha was a Shakya. So, if we're listing the known facts about the Buddha, where do we begin?— Nat Krause^{( Talk!· What have I done?)} 19:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The basic thing to remember is that we're not supposed to be deciding facts for ourselves. We're supposed to report scholarly opinion. In this connection, here's another neat quote:

"Scholars are increasingly reluctant to make unqualified claims about the historical facts of the Buddha's life and teachings." (Lopez, Buddhism in Practice, p16)

At present the article seems to be a rather chaotic mixture of Theravada fundamentalism, legends & assorted theories. Peter jackson 12:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this typical of Wikipedia? There's an enormous amount of discussion above about the name of the article, but my comments about the content have attracted little response. Peter jackson 09:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't say it's terribly atypical. It should be said that which title this article should have is important. But your comment was also important and it's a pity that there was little discussion of it. I'm part of that, too, since I didn't have any comments on it immediately, but I'll make some short comments now.— Nat Krause^{( Talk!· What have I done?)} 19:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"(Sakyamuni Buddha's) physical characteristics are described in one of the central texts of the traditional Pali canon, the Digha Nikaya." -- This needed tweaking (and needs more), as (A) Digha Nikaya is better described as "a collection", rather than as "a text", and (B) we should therefore specify just where in Digha Nikaya said descriptions of Sakyamuni Buddha occur. -- Writtenonsand 14:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I assume the text you tagged was referring to DN 30, so I replaced the tag with an appropriate citation (Walshe's Wisdom Pubs version -- since this discourse is not translated into English on either "Access to Insight" or "MettaNet").

I also attempted to provide the best source I could find re: the "Lion of Men" reference -- something more reliable would be great! (And is this gatha possibly "canonical"? If so, please correct my entry and cite the canonical passage.)

DN 30 is basically the source for the 32 "marks" described at the WP article Physical characteristics of the Buddha. As commonsense and scholarly sources suggest, these reputed marks are very likely based on ethically-based ideals as opposed to presumed reality. So, I think it might be best to mention these as the Buddha's "physical characteristics" with some caution; but, this could just be my own non-traditional view.

I hope this helps, Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 04:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's likely the 32 marks were a visualization, as described in Chih-i's Mo-ho-chih-kuan. Peter jackson 12:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps more food for thought, I just came across the following from the Ambaṭṭha Sutta ("Pride Humbled," DN 3, vv. 2.11-2.12):

Then, descending from his lodging, the Lord [Buddha] started to walk up and down, and Ambaṭṭha did likewise. And as he walked along with the Lord, Ambaṭṭha looked out for the thirty-two marks of a Great Man on the Lord's body. And he could see all of them except for two. He was in doubt and perplexity about two of these marks: he could not make up his mind or be certain about the sheathed genitals or the large tongue.

And the Lord, being aware of his doubts, effected by his psychic power that Ambaṭṭha could see his sheathed genitals, and then, sticking out his tongue, he reached out to lick both ears and both nostrils, and then covered the whole circle of his forehead with his tongue. Then Ambaṭṭha thought, 'The ascetic Gotama is equipped with all the thirty-two marks of a Great Man, complete and with none missing.'.... (Walshe, 1995, p. 122)

Referring to this discourse in an end note to DN 30, Walshe (1995, p. 610, n. 939) writes: "RD [T.W. Rhys Davids] has a wide-ranging introduction tracing the possible origins of such marks, which clearly must have been important in the minds of influential Brahmins in the time of the Buddha (see, e.g., DN 3)."

Thought some might find this of interest. Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 01:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

And, just by chance, I see that the 32 marks are briefly enumerated in DN 14 (Walshe, 1995, pp. 205-6, v. 1.32) as well. If anyone would like me to do a more thorough search of the La Trobe U. database for references to these 32 marks in the Pali literature, just let me know. Perhaps the aforementioned end note I recently added to this article needs to be expanded? Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 01:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the 2 refs you give, I think the only other place in the Canon where they're listed is the Brahmayu sutta in the Majjhima, though they're mentioned elsewhere. The Penguin Handbook says something about the visualization, though I can't remember exactly what. Peter jackson 12:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to everybody working on this.  :-) -- Writtenonsand 12:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, in case anyone's interested in following up on this further, using the La Trobe University on-line search engine, a search for the term mahāpurisalakkhaṇ (truncated to allow for various inflections) leads to 77 (BJT) record hits, at least 65 of which are in the Pali Canon. Here's the first page of the search results (with links to the subsequent pages as well): http://www.chaf.lib.latrobe.edu.au/dcd/pitikaresults.php?title=&start=0&to=10&searchstring=Mahāpurisalakkhaṇ .

Of course, this is by no means a straightforward indicator of how many discourses actually reference this term (nor what this term means in the context of various suttas) since multiple records can be part of a single sutta. (Similarly, this is not a clear reflection of the total number of times that this term appears in the Pali literature as a single record could have multiple instances of the term and their might be other ways of formulating this phrase not addressed by the above truncated compound term, etc.).

FWIW, a quick review of these results (potentially suggestive of the distribution of this term in the various nikayas) shows 40 hits in the Digha Nikaya, 15 in the Majjhima Nikaya, none in the Samyutta Nikaya, 3 in the Anguttara Nikaya, and 7 in the "canonical" Khuddaka Nikaya (mostly in the Suttanipata), 5 in the paracanonical KN works (e.g., Netti, Peta), one in the Abhidhamma's Kathavatthu, once in the Visuddhimagga, and 5 times in the Pali histories. If nothing else, this distribution perhaps suggests that suttas identified by Peter and myself might possibly be (among?) the core texts. :-)

With metta, Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 04:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of those refs will be to the stock description of a learned brahmin, eg in Ambattha sutta. Peter jackson 12:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Gautam Buddha was born in Nepal. I have come across several articles where it says he is from India. This totally misleading information. I watched the show Are you smarter than 5th grader where they also claimed that Buddha was from India. I truly believe that Nepal being a small country India is dominating it historical facts. I think this claim of Buddha being a part of India needs to be revised and the right information needs to be passed across every one. I am shocked that the pride of Nepal is being taken away by wrong information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.233.30 ( talk) 15:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Despite the impression you may have gotten, this article is not at all about the pride of Nepal.— Nat Krause^{( Talk!· What have I done?)} 01:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That is why the term 'Ancient Indian' has been used here. Nepal at the time it was part of Aryavrata or Northern India. Even Buddha's own birth place and kingdom were both located along the present day indo-nepalese border, What is believed to be Lumbini is barely inside Nepal, much of the kingdom was to the south and east of Lumbini which falls in present day India also Kapilavastu region is on either side of the border. A good chunk of the kingdom was in Present day Uttar pradesh. Nepal didnot exist at the time. Besides Buddha attained enlightenment in India and wandered around Northern Indian regions of Rajagaha, Magadha etc. for most of his life and attained enlightenment in Bodh Gaya, Bihar(the birth place of Buddhism) and attained parinirvana in Kushinara which is again in present day India. Also, the region of Kosala(buddha's native place) was an ancient Indian Aryan kingdom, corresponding roughly in area with the region of Oudh in eastern UP and southern fringes of Nepal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.126.199.122 ( talk) 02:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Lumbini is very close to the Indo-nepalese border today, this area was part of Awadh and was given with the rest of terai to Nepal in exchange of the conquered Himalayan territories(by the kingdom of Nepal in Bengal and Uttaranchal) by the British. In any event Nepal didnot exist during the time of Buddha or until a few centuries years ago. The whole area was part of hindu kingdoms of Aryavarta. Much of his life was spent in present day Indian states of Uttar Pradesh or Bihar, that is where buddhism was born, even if Uttarpradesh or Bihar become separate kingdoms/countries centuries down the road buddha will still be know as an Ancient Indian prince. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.126.199.122 ( talk) 21:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

70.22.8.153 ( talk) 02:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC) (Siddhartha made the 4 noble truths), he had tried many ways to find the truth he finally found enlightenment by meditating also.[[Image: http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTb_0BvY5HtlsAxgejzbkF/SIG=11ku7ricm/EXP=1200623233/**http%3A//www.naljor.com/dharma.htm -- 70.22.8.153 ( talk) 02:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)marisa mckenzie 6 grade giving you advice.

This article really ought cover the views of historians on which bits of the story of the Buddha's life are historically accurate. (What other article could it belong in?) How should this be formatted?

• Present a number of successive versions of the story according to different schools of thought among historians, followed by 1 or more giving the traditional story/ies
• Discuss in detail views about each episode as we go along

The former would look rather odd. The latter wouldn't flow. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Large chunks of this article are reproduced from http://www.fundamentalbuddhism.com/who-was-buddha.html without attribution. Not being a regular editor here, I'll leave the question of rewrite vs citation open without comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.33.183 ( talk) 08:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? While I have not done a word-for-word analysis, it seems by and large that this article has consistently more details than the fundamentalbuddhism.com article that you cite. (For instance, this article provides the name of the person who offered Siddharta rice gruel and the reason for her doing so.) It appears to me to be more likely that both this WP article and the fundamentalbuddhism.com article (which has no citations) obtained information from similar other (common) sources. Certainly, there are parts of this article that can use more citations (although some Buddhists might perhaps argue that such information is sufficiently widely known that a citation is unnecessary); but, given the differences in detail, it appears unlikely that the fundmentalbuddhism article was a source for this WP article. Please correct me if this analysis is in error. Thanks, Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 14:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

India even is a big country but try to steal the good ancient reputation of Nepal. India also destroys the tourism in Nepal. So we all Nepali think that Indians are greedy of Neplese fame. [Proud People from Lumbini,Nepal] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.70.64.41 ( talk) 12:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Knowing the fact that Gautam Buddha was born in Kapilvastu, Lumbini, which is now a part of NEpal, stop claiming that he was born in India. The whole wide world knows the fact and this the time India should accept it too.

People need to be educated on this matter.

Gautam Buddha was born in Kapilvastu, Lumbini, which is now a part of NEpal.

It is ridiculous that knowing the truth the Indians still claim that he was born in India.

People should be ashamed to claim some other country's asset as our own.

People need to be educated on this matter, especially when UNESCO (United Nations' Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) has claimed support the fact that Buddha was born in Nepal, and thus has listed Lumbini in their World Heritage Site.

Nepal is far smaller and less powerful than India but that does not mean that India should take advantage of this fact.

Use your conscience and ponder over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratikchh ( talk • contribs) 03:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Nepal didn't exist then. Do you want to say Jesus was born in the West Bank & Muhammad in Saudi Arabia? Of course mentioning that the traditional site of his birthplace is now in Nepal is another matter. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if tommorow Nepal was to break up lets say into Terai, Pokharaland or Gorkhaland, will then we all have to say Buddha was a Teraian prince???(and conform to your view that terai was never ruled by any indian empire lol) or worse if Nepalese gov and the maoists so beholden to Chinese communists and so dead set agianst India and Tibet were to form some sort of union with the Chinese, then would it be safe to say that Buddha was a Chinese prince born in the chinese part of the ancient Shakya kingdom??? ahhh you people accept that Lumbini is in modern Nepal and Nepal didnot exist until much recent times and the terai was part of ancient and medieval Indian kingdoms including that of the Shakyas, or as ancient texts say was part of many kingdoms of Aryavarta(Ancient India). Its funny how so many talk of the country/kingdom of Nepal as if it has existed politically since time immemorial, when it is one of the youngest in the world.

I agree with Peter Jackson. I was confused for a second, because my middle name is Jackson and I didn't remember saying that... May you go in God's care. Peter Deer ( talk) 08:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

to above poster.... so if it is the case.. then lets delete all the word "India" in this page because 1. India is the name given by British people before it was called Bharat. 2. India came to an existance since 1947. Before that there were 100's of small countries where the last ones were in existance till late 1970's.....and no country called India was there anywhere before 1947...there are still separatist movement going on within India these days....anyway Lets follow your argument ""Mr. Deer"". According to your argument lets change the name ""Ancient India"" To ""Shakya Kingdom"" which currently is in mordern Nepal""... Also mentioned in the page Timeline of Buddhism ..Now what do you have to say?!!

Now what do you have to say?!!!!

Here's a nice photograph of the fasting Buddha ( Gandhara, circa 2nd century CE). Please feel free to include it in the article. PHG ( talk) 20:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

IN the Buddha Hinduism section, it says that Modern Hinduism didnt exist and I think thats a somewhat mis leading thing to put down. Yes things may have been different but when you put a sentence like that it makes a person who is not familar with Hinduism think "OK Hinduism wasnt that big back then, or maybe the person might think "Ok Hinduism didnt really exist back then"....HInduism is the oldest known religion (or one of the oldest) and to say modern Hinduism didnt exist isnt really neccassary to put is it? I mean it existed back then so I think that statemen should be taken out. 71.105.82.152 ( talk) 23:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The Vedas and some of the Upanishads were written already but the whole point of the religion was mostly performing sacrifices, mostly animal sacrifices. So it was a different thing really - In books people usually refer to the the religion then as "Brahmanism." Mitsube ( talk) 20:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Why are most of the pictures of broken statues? Are there any pictures of statues that aren't broken? Mitsube ( talk) 20:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"Scholars are increasingly reluctant to make unqualified claims about the historical facts of the Buddha's life and teachings." ^[1] What are the qualified claims and what are the qualifications? Such a broad attack on Buddhist history should not be the last line of the intro especially since there's little about this in the body. There's already a mention that the monks elaborated on things. Mitsube ( talk) 23:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

it is a really sorry story that so many indians (particularly from North India) feel and strongly believe that Siddhartha Gautama, was born in India. To make matters very clear, I strongly all of you to visit a place called Lumbini, in south-western region of Nepal bordering India. Once you visit that place, all your doubts, even the tiniest iota, will be clear.

There is even a glorious pillar, the Ashok Pillar, built by the famous Indian Emperor Ashoka, that stands just besides the birthplace of Siddhartha.

I dont want to offend here. But people are clearly being disillusioned by certain issues pertaining to the birth of the Buddha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riteshlamsal ( talk • contribs) 19:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The Hinduism section is utter nonsense and isn't worth salvaging. If someone can come up with non-partisan, encyclopedic wording, go for it. JohnGlasheen ( talk) 01:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey,

    I know Indians want something more all the time to say that they are proud of their country but leave Nepal and Buddha out please.
    Buddha was born in ancient HINDU COUNTRY NOT ANCIENT INDIA. First of all India was not formed till late. Also even if he was Hindu so what Nepal is a Hindu country. Does that mean Nepal is India? And stop calling us with shit names and calling us morons. We have given you out greatest of ancient warriors to assist in the battle against the British in the past like Bir Balbhadra Kunwar, who again you may claim was a Indain.
    If Indains and the whole of India actually wants to take the birth place of Buddha (Lumbini) then all it needs to do is send its forces and kill us Nepalis. If not accept the TRUTH.

Demogorgon

South asia comprises all the area of Buddha's life birth place lumbini in Nepal and the Bodh Gaya place where he was enlightened. To write Ancient India only serves the purpose of Indians trying to say that Buddha was born in India. They even have created a fake city inside India which is called Lumbini to confuse the rest of world about the birthplace of Buddha. To the people who are still confused about the birth place of Buddha then please refer to the page lumbini, there now we have everything cleared.

Thank you!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzmand ( talk • contribs) 11:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)