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.
Please change the vandalised image of gautama buddha.
Please change the main image of a vandalised sculpture of gautama buddha to something that is in proper condition. Buddhism isn't an extinct religion and the article should show people visiting this page seeking to learn basics of buddhism something pleasant to look at. I already stated my reason for changing the image but people keep reverting it back to older image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohitkiran99 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't know who and why the previous image was put there, but it seems to me the old image had an important historical significance, since it is from Sarnath.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 14:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Farang Rak Tham. Although I appreciate Rohitkiran99's efforts, his new image has no historical value (and is aesthetically disputable to say the least), which, for an encyclopedia is problematic. I believe the 5th century Sarnath image is way more appropriate for the article. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
It's only a representational image. It doesn't need to be historically old. Take main images for the articles for vishnu or shiva for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohitkiran99 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
The old image is not removed so what is all the fuss about? Using the desecrated sculpture of buddha as main image is purely disrespectful towards tradition especially when it is still being followed by millions of people. I'm not insisting on keeping the image i uploaded forever, im just requesting to use it until someone comes up with better image.Rohitkiran99 (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I prefer the historical image. A historical image (1st millenium) without damage might be an improvement. JimRenge (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Sigh.... Talking about edit-warring. Look Rohitkiran99, you broke WP:3RR; you're up for a block. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
The Sarnath Buddha today.
The Sarnath Buddha and the Lion Capital of Ashoka at time of discovery.
By the way, I don't think the Sarnath Buddha was "desecrated" in anyway, contrary to what Rohitkiran99 seems to imply. It's just a sculpture with about 1500 years of age and marginal wear, which was discovered in the excavations of Sarnath in the early 1900s together with the Lion Capital of Ashoka which is now the emblem of India. Both of them appear in the center and the right of this picture of the excavations at Sarnath. It is actually a beautiful, authentic sculpture, with comparatively little damage and a great history, which is in no way "disrespectful towards tradition", quite the contrary. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey, Guys. Is this dispute really worth your time? Maybe you two could collaborate and come up with an image that you *both* would like? Shouting past each other seems like exactly the sort of behavior that got all those Buddhas defaced! There are lots of creative commons Buddha images available. For example: https://www.pexels.com/photo/macro-shot-photography-of-gautama-buddha-figurine-1379115/
If that is not to your taste, just look around and find something that is. I'm partial to the 3D holograms of the Buddhas of Bamiyan, as they illustrate the rebirth of a historical Buddha sculpture, and the resilience of Buddhism, but we would need to find a creative commons image. Here's a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmDKHbv-ubI
@पाटलिपुत्र, not desecrated? really? just look at its nose, fingers, feet and the small figures of people below, above.Rohitkiran99 (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I really don't see Rohikiran99's point here. Speaking as a Buddhist, it's a statue; liberation does not depend on images. Attaching such importance to anicca seems to be a sign of attachment. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Consensus seems already to be decided on keeping the old image. I just want to add that the image from Sarnath that we are talking about is very iconic. It is the most likely image (pictured) you will come across in souvenir shops along the four pilgrimage places in India, and copies of it are in museums all over the pilgrimage routes. Not to mention the numerous books on which the image features.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 11:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I though it would be good to note that, even though the stated reason for the removal of the image was its allegedly poor condition, as far as ancient statues go, this one is actually remarkably well preserved. Ancient statues normally have parts broken off (especially noses, arms, legs, and other parts that sick out), but this one is in extremely good condition, comparatively speaking. There are other sculptures of the Buddha of similar age in similar condition, but you would be very hard-pressed to find an ancient sculpture of him in better condition. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Good point. In addition: why use the term "vandalised"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
The actual year of birth and death of Buddha is
623-624BC and 543-544BC in many theravada buddhist countries
According to the theravada Buddhism, Buddha passed away at the age of 80
The Buddhist Era is counted after Buddha achieve Mahaparinibanna(passed away)
2018CE is 2562BC
So if u do some maths it will be 544/543BC
if he was a western/ european figure his date would have been immediately accepted as the one you cited, but since he is not, it will always be a suspicion, the agenda is to bring him closer to persian or greek invasion of india. 115.135.130.182 (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia has another long section on the Buddha, with info. that could be included here.
In Vaishnava Hinduism, the historic Buddha is considered to be an avatar of the Hindu god Vishnu.[11] Of the ten major avatars of Vishnu, Vaishnavites believe Gautama Buddha to be the ninth and most recent incarnation.[12][13 please change this D4devika (talk) 12:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2018
This edit request to Gautama Buddha has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change
In Vaishnava Hinduism, the historic Buddha is considered to be an avatar of the Hindu god Vishnu.[11] Of the ten major avatars of Vishnu, Vaishnavites believe Gautama Buddha to be the ninth and most recent incarnation.[12][13]
to
In Vaishnava Hinduism, some sources consider the historic Buddha to be an avatar of Hindu god Vishnu, while in Sri Vaishnava lists, Buddha is replaced by [[1]]. Svaradhan (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Done Partially. The article is about Buddha, not the different avatars of Vishnu. Dashavatara supports saying "some sources", since clearly in others Buddha is not listed, so I made the first part of your change, but going into who is listed when Buddha isn't is out of scope for this article. Schazjmd (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Buddha's Buddhist era date honored just like Christian Era/Islamic Era
hi,
i propose that Theravada Buddhist traditions's Gautama Buddha's birth date should be shown, i have no issues with the rest of the contested dates, Theravada Buddhist era which begins from the parinirvana of Buddha/ which is also archaeologically confirmed by an expedition led by Durham university team should also be shown/ 623-624BC and 543-544BC, as Christ's birthdate is also shown according to Christian era's tradition, i think not honouring this date exhibits eurocentrism and bigotry, regards. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Your suggestion would be more appropriate at Wikipedia:WikiProject Buddhism or a similar page. However, before you go there, read WP:Assume good faith until your eyes bleed. You continually accuse anyone who doesn't immediately give you your way of being Persians or Eurocentrists or bigots, always without evidence and sometimes in the face of evidence to the contrary. It is a completely inappropriate attitude that is incompatible with this project and if you don't drop it, we will drop you. Your accusation of Eurocentrism is rather disproven by the inclusion of Islamic era dates in articles about Islam, which your post's title acknowledges in passing (unless you meant to imply that Islam is a European religion that uses the Christian calendar). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I believe AD and BC format should be used rather than CE and BCE. The AD/BC date format has been used since the beginning of the Middle Ages and is recognized around the world, and it has always been used for the Gregorian calendar internationally. The CE/BCE format has only been used since the 1800s and was originally only used among Jewish communities until just a few decades ago; it is not nearly as internationally recognized as the AD/BC format when using the Gregorian calendar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmizerski2000 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Both can be used at Wikipedia; since this article is about the Buddha, not Christianity, using a dating format which has the birthdate of Jesus Christ as its starting point is highly insensitive. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per reasons given by Joshua.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 13:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I prefer BCE/CE in articles about non-Christian religions. JimRenge (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Where was Gautama Buddha born?
Siddhartha Gautama, later known as Gautama Buddha was born in the place called Lumbini which is located in the southern part of Nepal. Now, It is a world heritage site and foremost place for Buddhists.Ishkh (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishkh (talk • contribs) 15:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
That's what the article says.Editor2020 (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Dates
User:Foamingz twice diffdiff added the Nepalese, c.q. Southeast Asia and South Asi dates for the Buddha (623 BCE-543 BCE), giving the following references:
K.R. Norman (1997), The Four Noble Truths, in Norman Collected Papers II, p. 33 - Note 6 says: According to Pali scholar K. R. Norman, a life span for the Buddha of c. 480 to 400 BCE (and his teaching period roughly from c. 445 to 400 BCE) "fits the archaeological evidence better". (Norman 1997, p.39). Exit Norman.
HEINZ BECHERT (1991). "The Dating of the Historical Buddha"(PDF). p. 38. ISBN9783525824818. - this is not written by Bechert, who is the editor, but by Jens-Uwe Hartmann. At page 38, Hartmann mentions Bhag Chandra Jain's 1973 publication, who speculates about 623/4 BCE. Hartmann then writes: ...it cannot be excluded that the author's main objective is to confirm the sacrosanct date handed down by a religious tradition.
"Buddhism". PediaPress. p. 53. - PediaPress, that is, Wikipedia...
Ok now I learned. I apologize for my carelessness and mistake. But I don’t think you should say "wasting your time"☹️.KonishiWhoTalk 11:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
This edit request to Gautama Buddha has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Buddha was born in KAPILVASTU. I know this because I have been studying him for a while. You should change it to this town. I know I am right. Kahandas (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We cannot use wikipedia as a source, and we cannot link to copyright violations (see WP:LINKVIO). NiciVampireHeart 08:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
50.250.29.249(talk·contribs·WHOIS), do you have secondary reliable sources that show that these symphonies are widely known, often talked about, or at least, have been written about in news or scholarly reports?--Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 11:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Weak support, post-canonical Buddhist texts such as the Anāgatavaṃsa and Dasabodhisattuppattikatha discuss the ten future Buddhas mentioned. The article as it is now should be completely rewritten though, using independent sources. One needs to search pretty hard though. E.g., the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism has an entry on the Anāgatavaṃsa, the same scripture that is known to mention the ten future Buddhas, though the dictionary does not actually discuss these ten. This reliable source mentions the ten Buddhas, but only briefly in a footnote:
Though the possibility for the existence of other future buddhas beside Metteyya is mentioned only briefly in the Paali canon, in other post-canonical Theravaadin texts, there are more specific references to
future bodhisattvas and buddhas. For instance, in the Dasabodhisattuppattikathaa, the
Dasabodhisattaddesa, and in one recension of
the Anaagatava.msa Desanaa, the nine
bodhisattvas who will follow Maitreya are
mentioned. Moreover, in one recension of the
Dasabodhisattuppattikathaa, we even find the
places of residence of seven of the ten
bodhisattvas: Metteyya, Raama, Pasena, and
Vibhuuti are presently residing in Tu.sita
heaven and Subhuuti, Naalaagiri, and Paarileyya
are now in Taavati.msa heaven. Thus, it appears
that the Theravaadin tradition acknowledges
certain "celestial" bodhisattvas who are
currently residing in various heavenly realms
and not that the only recognized bodhisattva in
Theravaada Buddhism is Maitreya (Edward Conze,
Thirty Years of Buddhist Studies: Selected
Essays by Edward Conze [Oxford: Bruno Cassirer,
This website is obviously not reliable, but contains bits of reliable sources such as the two frescoes, one of which is derived from Gombrich. These frescoes indicate the ten bodhisattas were a significant form of devotion in some places and periods, but I am unable to trace the original publications where the pictures are from.
Farang Rak Tham and Albert Poliakoff, would Future Bodhisattas in Pali Buddhism be okay? There might be discrepancies between sources as to which ten are included, but those variants can be expanded upon in the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
AngusWOOF, either go for Future buddhas in Pāli Buddhism or Ten Bodhisattas, I'd say. Buddhas-to-be are called bodhisattas in Pāli—I have never heard of future bodhisattas. Also, FYI, per Wikipedia guideline, religious terminology should not be capitalized, so if you aren't talking about specific people, you probably need to write buddhas and bodhisattas, instead of Buddhas and Bodhisattas, unless they're specific people, such as the Ten Bodhisattas, in which case they are a proper noun and thus capitalized. I corrected this in my own writing above.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 22:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
The concluding section of the Sotatthaki lists the ten Bodhisattas who will
become the Buddhas of the future, beginning with Metteyya. A community of
beneficence around these Bodhisattas and future Buddhas is an ongoing reality in the
Theravada.
and a footnote:
Of the ten Bodhisattas only the Bodhisatta Metteyya will become a Buddha in the present kappa. For the
list of ten Bodhisattas in the Sotatthaki see Smn 96, v. 632-633. According to the Sotatthaki, the ten
Bodhisattas are Metteyya, Rama,Pasena, Kosalobhibhu, Dighasoni, Sanki, Subha, Todeyyabrahmana,
Nalagiri, and Palileyya. Two Pali works describe the future lineage of Buddhas: the Dasabodhisattuddesa
and the Dasabodhisattuppartikatha. See F. Martini, "Dasabodhisatta-uddesa" Bulletin de Etcole
Frangaise d'Extreme-Orient, Vol. 3 6 ,2 , pp. 287-413; H. Saddhadssa, ed. and trans., The Birth-Stories of
the Ten Bodhisattas and the Dasabodhisattuppattikatha (London: The Pali Text Society, 1975).
Thanks. It sounds like Ten Bodhisattas would work. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Sure. Meanwhile, I checked out the two sources mentioned in the footnote below. As usual, the French is freely available, whereas the English is not—not even a preview. The French article does not do much more than provide a translation, though.
If you are going to pursue this further, I'd recommend you get your hands on the English book,[2] since it contains a 50 page introduction to the subject of the Ten Bodhisattas. This is the only substantial secondary reliable source I can find. Though Saddhatissa's translation is a primary source, the introduction to the translated text can be considered a secondary source, published under a reliable publisher. So there's your chance. If you can't access or buy the book, ask someone to copy the pages at WP:RX. For a basic idea on how to approach the subject matter in Wikipedia style, you might want to see Sumedha, which I have recently edited, and which I presume is acceptable within Wikipedia standards. The subject is very similar to the Ten Bodhisattas, except it deals with previous, not future Buddhas. If you don't start citing reliable secondary, scholarly sources, your article will probably never be allowed, I'm afraid.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 09:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
References
^Derris, K.A. (2000). Virtue and Relationships in a Theravādin Biography of the Bodhisatta: A Study of the Sotaṭṭhakīmahānidāna (PhD thesis). Harvard University. OCLC77071204.
^H. Saddhatissa, ed. and trans., The Birth Stories of the Ten Bodhisattas and the Dasabodhisattuppattikatha (London: The Pali Text Society, 1975)
Conclusion notability
Farang Rak Tham, if the articles you listed are included as external references or links, would that be enough for notability, even if at Stub level? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
To meet the qualification of more than a trivial mention, I would have to take a look at Saddhatissa's introduction first. I am uncertain what he writes about exactly. Notability at this point is still uncertain as far as I am concerned.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 15:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Another concern is that even if Saddhatissa writes extensively about the Ten Bodhisattas, since his book concerns only the Dasabodhisattuppattikatha, a merge with that article would perhaps make more sense.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 15:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I've renamed the draft to Draft: Ten Bodhisattas for now. Discussion still remains whether it is independently notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
AngusWOOF, in retrospect, I fear I may have been too strict in my application of the rules. The fact that a scholarly publication was written from a very reliable publisher (Pali Text Society) about the Ten Bodhisattas—and only that subject—already indicates sufficient notability. I am changing from weak support to Support.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 19:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think it should be merged, but the name of the article should be Ten Bodhisattas, not Dasabodhisattuppattikatha, because the former is a more notable and broader topic than just the single text of the Dasabodhisattuppattikatha.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 20:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Farang Rak Tham I am the writer of the 10 Bhodhisatthas article and I have read Dasabodhisattuppattikatha. I think that my article can be merged. However, as Dasabodhisattuppattikatha is a Pali text and has the meaning of "The Life Stories of Future Buddhas", and the main idea of my article is about the bodhisattas meeting the historical Gotama Buddha, I think the Ten Bhodhisatthas should be included as a brief section of the article.Albert Poliakoff (talk) 07:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion, I think it should be the other way around: most scholars speak of the Ten Bodhisattas as a motif in several scriptures, therefore Dasabodhisattuppattikatha should be merged in Ten Bodhisattas—Ten Bodhisattas should be the name of the article.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 07:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
For what it is worth, on the Thai language Wikipedia the ten future Buddhas are listed in a template about Buddhas, and they all have their own wiki article.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 14:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that this article calls Buddha a "sage" linking to Sage (philosophy) -- a page with only content from a Western philosophical view. Since the Buddha page links to that page, it would be good to add an Eastern view. Anybody here know enough about that to do it?Teishin (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I have changed the wikilink to link to Muni (Saint), which is often used in Early Buddhist Texts.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 20:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2019
This edit request to Gautama Buddha has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Buddha was born in Nepal. Its not northern part of India.. It is actually Southern part of Nepal. This is important to edit because many of the people have wrong knowledge about this so I request you to change this thing immediately. Rohan.msi (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Could not this article point out that the Buddha got so thin, he felt his backbone by pressing his stomach? It seems to me the Buddha suffered from anorexia nervosa. Vorbee (talk) 08:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I have noticed there is inconsistency in the article with regard to the use of diacritics. Should we write Sarvastivada or Sarvāstivāda? If we write the latter, then we should not write Prince Siddhartha, but Prince Siddhārtha. Considering common usage in scholarship, I propose using diacritics throughout.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 14:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Gautama Buddha (born in Lumbini) and related facts: He belonged to Koli Clan of Rajputs:
The Sakyan and Koliyan ruled on opposite banks of the Rohni River. Their representatives were called rajas and their chief was the maharaja or Ganapati. However, they both were independent republics. The Koliya owned two chief settlements of Santhagara, at Ramagama and at Devadaha of Nawalparasi Nepal. Present day Lumbini Zone, Kapilvastu, Nepal.
Suddhodana was the father of Siddhartha Gautama, who later became Buddha. Siddhartha Gautama later became known as Shakyamuni, the "Sage of the Shakyans," or the Buddha. Suddhodana's paternal aunt was married to the Koliyan ruler Añjana. Their daughters, Mahamaya and Mahapajapati Gotami, were married to Śuddhodana, the chief of the Sakyans. Yashodhara (Koliyan Princess), daughter of Suppabuddha, who was Añjana’s son (Koli), was married to the Sakyan prince, Gautama Buddha. Thus, the two royal families were related by marriage bonds between maternal and paternal cousins since ancient times.
The Koliyas/Koli were Kshatriya of the Adicca (Iksvaku) clan of the Solar Dynasty from the Indian subcontinent, during the time of Gautama Buddha.
The family members of the two royal families, that is the Koliyas and Sakyas married only among themselves. Both clans were very proud of the purity of their royal blood and had practised this tradition of inter-marriage since ancient times. In spite of such close blood-ties, there would be occasional rifts between the two royal families, which sometimes turned into open hostility.
The Koli are an ethnic Indian group in Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Haryana, Karnataka and Jammu and Kashmir states.
These ancient kingdoms of India ruled by Koli Clan (Rajputs) over thousands of years were shown in maps of Nepal after British raj.History of Nepal doesn't show historical records of how & when these different parts of Kapilvastu became part of Nepal without any war/victory/annexation. Because of negligence/ignorance of british indian authorities; that caused transfer of territory.
I just thought you might like to know. I personally feel above facts are important to add to the page. I think the revert of my edit is not justified because it will not improve the article and will not conform with WP:lead. You should think twice in similar situations.
Please prove that historical facts are not true if you want to delete this talk as per wikipedia policies. Sources of information can be found as mentioned above. Deletion of this talk won't change history. Truth will come out again & again in books, literature & historical munuments.
Best regards. Prashanna01 (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2020
This edit request to Gautama Buddha has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Buddha was born in Nepal. Stop crying dear Indians, history nor repeated neither changed. 27.34.27.89 (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
It's not necessary to address your fellow editors like that. In any case, this is explained in detail in a note – Thjarkur(talk) 16:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Physical Characteristics
In reference to the following excerpt from the article:
"Among the 32 main characteristics it is mentioned that Buddha has blue eyes.[149]"
The sentence suggests that the referenced source says that Buddha has blue eyes. The source in question is a collection of attributes of a "great man" that is taken to apply to Buddha but not known to be about him (according to this wiki). Additionally, the 32 signs have a mythological flavor, including such things as "forty teeth" and "lion shaped body" as well as non-physical characteristics such as "ten-foot aura around him." As such, the existing version in the article appears to make a stronger statement than it is really possible to make here. It should either be removed, or modified to mention more of the 32 signs rather than single this one out, to give a fuller sense of the orientation of the source, while also weakening the claim that it is known to be about the historical Buddha specifically. The former option (removal) seems preferable. Mindthief (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I think it should be removed. it does not appear to be important. JimRenge (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I have found that this text was added by a sockpuppet of a blocked user [2], [3]. I have removed the text per WP:EVASION. JimRenge (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
It may also be sloppy scholarship. In Pāli, the word for dark blue, dark green and black is the same word (nīla).--Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 23:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
The Buddha was an Arya but probably not an Aryan. JimRenge (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Good point. Regardless, without context, the statement appears irrelevant, and the source is not reliable enough for a high-profile article like this.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 12:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Christopher I. Beckwith claims that the Shakyas were Scythians using this as part of his evidence. It's probably only relevant in contexts such as that. Teishin (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Let us continue to remain vigilant, before Buddha goes the way of Jesus and starts looking like this instead of like this. Mindthief (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
It's far too late for thatTeishin (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Should there be an article about this subject? Please give your opinion here.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 15:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
It appears 1) the vote accessible by the link on word"here" is over, and 2) concerned another page regarding a swami's 1893 speech at a conference. Db919 (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
possiblity that the Buddha is mythological?
It's now believed that Moses was pure myth. (No serious historian doubts that Jesus was a real person.) My understanding is that the tales of the Buddha were first written down five hundred years after his death. I don't mean to get into a debate about the reliability of oral history vs. that of written history, but there's a real possibility that the Buddha, like Moses, was purely mythological.
And unlike Moses, he could be a composite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.55.17.173 (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
The Buddha as a mythological figure is a view that has long been held by some scholars, but the consensus among scholars is that the Buddha did historically exist, though few details of his life are historically known for certain. E.g. scholar of Asian religions Bernard Faure writes: "[i]t is fair to say that [the Buddha] was born, he lived, and he died ... [t]he rest remains lost in the mists of myth and legend". For an overview of current scholarship on this, see Wynne, Alexander (2019). "Did the Buddha exist?". Journal of the Centre of Buddhist Studies. 9 (16): 98–148..
It may be useful to add that Buddhists themselves have also replied the question whether the Buddha was a real person. It is mentioned in the Milindapañhā. Here a Buddhist monk replies to a curious Greek king that he knows the Buddha was a real person, because his teachings are really effective, therefore they must come from an enlightened person. For what it's worth, --Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 00:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2020
This edit request to Gautama Buddha has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
the end is the part that has false info. Endstone400 (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Can you be more specific? – Thjarkur(talk) 19:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Plans/Ideas for revamping this article
I've recently made some edits to the "Teachings" section since it was very inadequate. How can the wikipedia article on an important religious founder not cover his basic ideas and teachings?
Basically, I've been following a similar to model to the article on another important religious founder, Jesus. The first part covers the Buddha's teachings as depicted in the earliest texts (the Early Buddhist Texts). Then there is a second section which has all the discussion of the scholarly opinions and disagreements on whether he actually taught any of this and so on.
Regarding the "Biography" section, this needs a lot of work, more importantly it needs some structure. It has tons of pictures but not a lot of sources or substance. I think I want to tackle this going forward as follows: focus on the Buddha's life according to the earliest sources, and then also include the legendary and mythological material. But most importantly, the sources should be named. It shouldn't read like "as a child, the Buddha did so and so", instead it should say "the Lalitavistara depicts the Buddha as doing x y and z".
Input and criticism is welcomed, I can't make this article perfect by myself but I'm working on it. Javierfv1212 14:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
What I have seen you doing now looks good, Javierfv1212. I recommend using John S. Strong's books. He has been most prolific about the Buddha's life in recent years. I think we do need to get this article to GA level, it's been at B-level for way too long, and is way too important.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 09:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
The readable prose size of the article is now 65 kb. I don´t think it is too big now but please see Wikipedia:Summary style and WP:SIZERULE. JimRenge (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the John Strong recommendation, that was very useful!Javierfv1212 22:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't agree with many of these mass changes. Lead and history sections prior to 30 December should be restored since previous version used better sources and language for readers. All galleries should be removed as they are violating WP:GALLERY. --RaviC (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Restoring previous versions and in the process mass-reverting changes is not the way to go forward here. If you have any specific objections, tag the article or talk it over here, RaviC.
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Çakya-Mouni. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguilltalk 20:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Proposal to Adding The Name of Buddha Shakyamuni to The Top of This Wikipedia.
This edit request to Gautama Buddha has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
As the respectful name Buddha Shakyamuni was included in many Buddhist Sutras, it is highly suggested to include this name at the top of this wikipedia where his name was introduced.
As he was the only Buddha appeared officially in our world, for the purpose of not confusing other readers, especially the beginners, this would be very beneficial to all people who are willing to learn about him and his teachings.
Your change would be highly appreciated! UreadUs (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. Moreover, this already appears in the article a number of times. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The article should be renamed "Shakyamuni Buddha". The name "Gautama Buddha" is an ignorant solecism, never used by Buddhists, and contrary to Buddhist teaching. I have added more on this point above.
Scripts
A user replaced Sanskrit in the brackets of the lead with Devanagari, not sure why that was done as the purpose was to specify not the script. Another user added Brahmi scripts for Pali which is normally written in the Latin script and does not have any specific script. Which is reverted these changes. Gotitbro (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Indic scripts in lead: "Per the Manual of Style page on India-related articles, avoid the use of Indic scripts in the lead sections or infoboxes. Instead, use International Phonetic Alphabet pronunciation guides, which are more international. Exceptions are articles on the script itself, articles on a language that uses the script, and articles on texts originally written in a particular script. This does not apply to articles that are not predominantly within the scope of WikiProject India." (wikipedia:INDIC SCRIPTS) JimRenge (talk) 01:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
@JimRenge: I guess this means, if we follow this rule, that the Devanagari script सिद्धार्थ गौतम in the intro [4], which is being used to transliterate the Sanskrit expression Siddhārtha Gautama, has to be removed as well. Sanskrit was initially written in the Brahmi script, and then in numerous different scripts, so it does not make much sense to use selectively the comparatively modern Devanagari script to express it. Sanskrit is a language, not a particular script, so the International Phonetic Alphabet would be the only proper way to transcribe it, per wikipedia:INDIC SCRIPTS? Can you confirm? पाटलिपुत्रPat(talk) 08:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, looking once again into MOS:IS, I see that "This avoidance of Indic scripts only applies to articles that are predominantly India-related and is excluded from, among others, articles about [...] Buddhism [...]." I have no strong opinion about the use of indic script or which indic script should be preferred. JimRenge (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Jim. @Farang Rak Tham, Gotitbro, and Dongar Kathorekar: In this case, I guess it does make sense to mention the name of the Buddha in the Prakrit language in the Brahmi script (𑀩𑀼𑀥 𑀲𑀓𑁆𑀬𑀫𑀼𑀦𑀻Bu-dha Sa-kya-mu-nī), since this is historically how he was first recorded (in the Edicts of Ashoka, 3rd century BCE). This is the most authentic we can get. It is similar to when we introduce Xerxes I, a contemporary of the Buddha, with his name in Old Persian: 𐎧𐏁𐎹𐎠𐎼𐏁𐎠Xšayaṛša, the long-extinct script of his time. For Sanskrit, it is generally appropriate to use the IPA pronunciation (Siddhārtha Gautama) since it is a language, and not a particular script. The use of the modern Devanagari script (सिद्धार्थ गौतम) doesn't make much sense, except as a courtesy to the Hindi-speaking world, but since it is the script in most common use in India and one of the two official languages of the Government of India (together with English), I favour keeping it as well... and if we remove it, it will come back anyway. Comments welcome. पाटलिपुत्रPat(talk) 15:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
@पाटलिपुत्र: Honestly I don't like to see a myriad scripts in the lead at all. Which is what the INDICCRIPTS policy was trying to achieve in the first place. While I get that you want to show the ancient scripts in which the names were recorded, it makes the lead more cluttered in my opinion especially by adding scripts no one would even understand. It seems better to just add a pronunciation if the name is unfamiliar and add a "name" section if you want to show the old recorded usages (removing all scripts from the lead). Gotitbro (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Devanagari has been removed, I will be monitoring this, as I know there are certain kinds of users on wikipedia with very strong opinions about this kind of thing. Javierfv1212 14:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
We have another editor attempting to re-add Devanagari. I reverted again. User:NativeNames please read the discussion above... Javierfv1212 18:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
There are wikipedia articles where Pali terms are written in Devanagari.
Please look into this. I have corrected some , either by replacing them with Sinhala script which was historically used to write Pali or replaced with Latin script which is internationally accepted.
If there are still any Pali terms that are written in Devanagari, please correct them accordingly. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Regarding his [[[User:Illuminaati|Illuminaati]]] points in the Shakya talk page.
He says "Manusmriti was written around 2nd century BCE to 3rd century CE, after the great decline of Buddhism and is highly prejudiced against Buddhism. Nothing written in it can be treated as factual." First, the decline of Buddhism is much later (we are talking post Palas). Second, many scholars use this text in their studies about Indian religion, in fact, it is widely used, and unless you can find a source or various sources which show that it is not a reliable text, the fact that it reflects the views of brahmins about the Shakyas stands.
He says: "Ambaṭṭha Sutta: this guy was disrepected by Shakyas because at that time vedic customs and their practioners weren't considered as high status as they later came to be considered after Gupta Empire." Not sure how this is supposed to disprove that the Ambaṭṭha Sutta is not a good source. If the Shakyans disrespected this brahmin, then it is clearly evidence which counts against the idea that they were in the realm of the aryan religious sphere which promoted brahmanism.
He says: "Regarding incest: The Shakyas considered themselves high status and pure and to preserve the purity of their blood they used to marry within their tribe or associate tribes." Ok, and? It's clear that this is a non-aryan practice. Which is what the scholar cited is using to prove they were not fully aryan.
He says: "If you are considering Hindu texts then consider other Hindu tests also , as per Bhagavata Puran, canto 9, chapter 12 as well as Vishhu Purana (Book 4, Chapter 22). Shakya are descendants of Lord Rama." I have no issue with these texts being cited, but perhaps it should be made clear these texts are more sectarian and mythological works and do not reflect the brahmanical culture of the Buddha's time, but the later medieval Vaishnava movement. The Bhagavata Purana is also a later text (scholars place it from 500 to 1000+ CE.) (See: The Development of Hinduism By M. M. Ninan p. 129.)
Whatever the case, the fact is that the sources used for the paragraph you are trying to remove are good scholarly sources.
@Joshua Jonathan: see the above discussion regarding the edit by Illumanaati you reverted today. Today I had to revert another of Illumanaati's deletions of the same content at Shakya. Teishin (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
If you see it's wrong Born year and Dead years. Original is Born - 563 BCE and DEAD Is 483 BCE Captainclu (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Captainclu, please read the article and check the references 1-3. Thank you. JimRenge (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Middle way section is quite misleading in the introduction of article.
The section at the beginning containing "The Buddha taught a middle way between sensual indulgence and the severe asceticism..." is misleading, as the middle way is not finding a compromise between sensual pleasure and asceticism, but instead going beyond both extremes.
I would paraphrase it as something like "The Buddha taught a middle way, which is not to be confused with finding a compromise between sensual indulgence and asceticism, but instead renouncing both."
There's also the aspect of the Middle Way that it eschews assent to extreme views. Teishin (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
"Gautama Buddha" is an ignorant solecism
No Buddhist would use the phrase "Gautama Buddha", which violates Buddhist teaching, and is considered an insult to him, to Buddhism, and to all Buddhists. This page should be renamed "Shakyamuni Buddha", the correct neutral title.
Bodhisatta/Bodhisattva, one destined to become a Buddha
His names from past lives, as given in the Jataka Tales, are acceptable in discussing those stories, or he can be called the Bodhisatta/Bodhisattva.
After enlightenment, when he and his followers never used his prior personal name:
Tathagata, Thus-come or Thus-gone, his term for himself
Bhagavat/Bhagavan, blessed one, used by followers to address him
Shakyamuni Buddha, used later on when talking about the Buddha
Arahat/Arhat worthy
Samma sambuddha, the fully awakened one
There are numerous others used and discussed here and there.
Brahmins are quoted in the Pali suttas addressing him as "Good Gotama". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokurai (talk • contribs) 23:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
"Gautama Buddha" is actually used in a number of Buddhist texts, but that is beyond the point as Wikipedia doesn't use honorifics except in exceptional cases. The use of his clan name is necessary in order to clearly identify him as the specific (semi-)historical figure of that name rather than any of the other cosmic or legendary Buddhas. "Siddhartha" as a first name isn't attested until relatively late in the literary tradition- it's not clear if it is historical or a later invention. --Spasemunki (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Prajapati class 5 Matribhumi school Bhaktpur Nepal
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP(talk • contribs) 03:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020
This edit request to Gautama Buddha has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Gautam buddha was born in lumbini nepal no where nepal is mentioned in this wikipedia please correct it 27.34.50.53 (talk) 11:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
The name "Gautama Buddha" for this article is unacceptable in Buddhism. It is a modern solecism that does not appear in Buddhist writings. He should be referred to as either "Siddhatta Gotama/Siddhartha Gautama" as a Bodhisattva before Enlightenment, or Shakyamuni Buddha after Enlightenment. Buddhists use many other titles for him, but these will not be familiar to non-Buddhists. He referred to himself exclusively as "Tathagata", and was generally addressed by his followers as "Bhagavan".
"Shakyamuni Buddha" would be the best title for this article.Cherlin (talk) 11:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
This same issue was raised by a different editor using suspiciously similar language less than a month ago. --Spasemunki (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Suspiciously!?! I am a Zen Buddhist priest and Teacher of Buddhism. And no, it wasn't a different author.Cherlin (talk) 11:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC) What other ID do you claim I used?
See WP:SOCK. Use of multiple accounts is discouraged on Wikipedia. If you are going to use a different account, it would be good to clearly identify it as such on the user page so that your intentions are clear. With regards to the title of the article, I addressed it in the section above. --Spasemunki (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Born country
Wikipedia, there is no proper information about birth country of Siddhartha Gautam which is Nepal and we all know that but in the article there is no any evidence of the birth country. My request please add the birth country i.e Nepal. Smiker09 (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
The earliest Buddhist sources state that the Buddha was born to an aristocratic (khattiya) family called Gotama (Sanskrit: Gautama), who were part of the Shakyas, a tribe of rice-farmers living near the modern border of India and Nepal.[1][2][3] [note:According to Geoffrey Samuel, the Buddha was born as a Kshatriya,[3] in a moderate Vedic culture at the central Ganges Plain area, where the shramana-traditions developed [...]
into
Gautama was born to a HinduKshatriya family,[3] [note: According to Geoffrey Samuel, the Buddha was born into a Hindu Kshatriya clan,[3] in a moderate Vedic culture at the central Ganges Plain area, where the shramana-traditions developed [...]
Totally unacceptable pov-pushing and misrepresentation of the sources. There was no Hinduism at 500 BCE, and Samuel most certainly does not state that the Buddha was born into a Hindu-family. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Apparently there are many sources that would disagree with your opinion here. For starters see this, published by Oxford. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Until at least January 2020, the version supported what I had been adding per here. Now any explanation regarding when and how it was changed is completely missing. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 08:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Than that version was incorrect too. And WP:CHERRYPICKING sources is not going to help here; this is a WP:REDFLAG. There was no Hinduism at 500 BCE. period. See
Hiltebeitel, Alf (2007). "Hinduism"(Digital printing). In Joseph Kitagawa (ed.). The Religious Traditions of Asia: Religion, History, and Culture. Routledge. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Larson, Gerald James (2009). "Hinduism". World Religions in America: An Introduction. Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 179–198. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
As Samuel explains (p.68), the Sakyas claimed descend from the Solar dynasty, and regarded themselves to be Aryans, yet from a different strand than the Kuru-Pancala group, the 'heartland' of orthodox Vedic culture. At best you can state, in a note, that some sources state that the Buddha was born into a Hindu family, but that this is an anachronistic use of the term Hindu. But that would be a WP:COATRACK discussion, on the presumed ancient origins of Hinduism as propagated by orthodox Hinduism.
Regarding Lewis R. Rambo, Charles E. Farhadian (eds)(2014), The Oxford Handbook of Religious Conversion, p.3, note that they also state that "Mahavira left his Hindu Kshatriya Hindu family to start the Jain tardition"; the editor at OUP must have been sleeping.
I agree with Joshua Jonathan. It is unreasonnable and anachronistic to say "Gautama was born to a Hindu Kshatriya family", especially in respect to the modern understanding of the word "Hindu" (qualifying Hinduism as a specific religion). Such a sentence sounds either like an afterglow of older writings (19th century, early 20th century) when "Hindu" was often used by western writers to just mean "Indian", or like a misunderstading of the history of religion. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 13:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Joshua Jonathan´s revert. This edit disrupted text-source integrity and appears to violate WP:NPOV. See also the sources here. JimRenge (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I think you guys are confusing and having a disbelief that your personal WP:OR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT will override what high-quality sources suggests. Vast majority of sources say Hinduism existed way before 1st millennium BCE, Buddha was born a Hindu and also that there was no "Buddhism" before 19th century so what is the point here with this unnecessary argument?
What you have to focus on is that the sources are being blatantly misrepresented here because none of the source mentioned "Khattiya". It should be spelled as "Kshatriya" and his parents should be mentioned. While I absolutely support "Hindu" added there, we can nonetheless add in note that Kshatriya is a Hindu clan, for now. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 17:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
We have sources that think Buddha was born a Zoroastrian, not a Hindu. If there's going to be a claim that he was born Hindu there needs to be a counter claim that he was born Zoroastrian. (Beckwith, "Greek Buddha" p9) Teishin (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Be carefull with phrases like personal WP:OR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and show us the "vast majority of sources [that] say [that] Hinduism existed way before [the] 1st millennium BCE," and that "Buddha was born a Hindu." There was no "Hinduism" at 500 BCE, even less at 1000 BCE. "Hinduism" is a synthesis of various Indian traditions; this synthesis developed after 500 BCE; see Hiltebeitel and Larsons. At 500 BCE there were Aryan traditions in northern India, including the Vedic traditon, and a lot of other local traditions, but not "Hinduism." See also: Witzel, Michael (1995), "Early Sanskritization. Origins and Development of the Kuru State."(PDF), Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies, 1 (4): 1–26, archived from the original(PDF) on 11 June 2007, retrieved 20 February 2012
If your real concern is that the sources are "blatantly misrepresented," because the Pali word instead of the Sanskrit-term is being used, we can discuss which word is to be preferred. But using Pali makes sense in the context of Buddhism. And anyway, the term kattiya is linked to Kshatriya.
Yet, why then do you insist on making a connection to Hinduism? What do you mean with "Kshatriya is a Hindu clan"? Kshatriya is indeed one of the four varnas; but this societal division has Aryan origins, and may even have Indo-European origins. Kshatriya in the context of the Buddha has to be seen in the context of the Aryan and Vedic societies of northern India at ca. 500 BCE; to state, in this context, that "Kshatriya is a Hindu clan" is a repetition of the same anachronism. Correct would be to state that the division of society into varnas has Aryan origins, and survived into Hinduism. Anyway, as stated before, the term kattiya is linked to Kshatriya; that should suffice.Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Regarding Lewis R. Rambo, Charles E. Farhadian (eds.)(2014), The Oxford Handbook of Religious Conversion, Oxford University Press, p.3, "Shakyamuni Siddharta Gautama, also raised in a Kshatriya Hindu family," and the claim that the "Vast majority of sources [which] say [that] Buddha was born a Hindu," Rambo and Farhadin preceed their statement with the thesis that "conversion marked the life of each major figure in this period" (the Axial Age). It's an unexplained statement, from a professor of the psychology of religion, not a scholar of Buddhism; and a professor of World Religions and Christian Mission, also not a scholar of Buddhis. If there was a conversion in the life of the Buddha, it was from the household life into the ascetic life, not from Hinduism into Buddhism.
In contrast, this is what some eminent scholars of Buddhism have written:
It is sometimes suggested that the Buddha was a Hindu. If by Hindu is meant 'anyone adhering to a religion of Indian origin', then he obviously was. However, if Hinduism is understood as that synthesis of various traditions oriented towards the Brahmanical Vedic tradition which has been the religion of most educated Indians since at least the fifth century CE, then the Buddha was certainly not a Hindu. Indeed, Buddhism was one of the influences which led to the formation of the Hindu synthesis.
Peter Harvey (2013), An Introduction to Buddhism]], second edition, Cambridge University Press, p.14 (emphasis mine):
We know that Gotama was born in the small republic of the Sakka (Skt Śākya) people, which straddles the present border with Nepal and had Kapilavatthu (Skt Kapilavastu) as its capital. From his birth among these people, Gotama is known in Mahāyāna tradition as Śākya-muni, ‘the Śākyan sage’. The republic was not Brahmanized, and rule was by a council of household-heads, perhaps qualified by age or social standing. Gotama was born to one of these rulers, so that he described himself as a Ksatriya when talking to Brahmins, and later tradition saw him as the son of a king.
Robert E. Buswell (ed.)(2004), Encyclopedia of Buddhism. Volume One: A-L, MacMillan, p.83:
The historical Buddha was born into the Sakya family, which belonged to the ksatriya (noble) caste, considered by Buddhists to be the highest caste. He was later known by the honorary title Sakyamuni, which means “sage of the Sakya clan.” The Sakyas were not kings, but they formed a class of nobles within a republican system of government that held regular meetings of the members of the leading families.
Rupert Gethin (1998), The Foundations of Buddhism, OxFord University Press, p.14-15:
The earliest Buddhist sources state that the future Buddha was born Siddhartha Gautama (Pali Siddhattha Gotama), the son of a local chieftain-a riijan-in Kapilavastu (Pali Kapilavatthu) on what is now the Indian-Nepalese border. He was thus a member of a relatively privileged and wealthy family, and enjoyed a comfortable upbringing. While the later Buddhist tradition, in recounting the story of his youth, certainly likes to dwell on the wealth of Siddhartha's family and the extravagance of his princely upbringing, there is something of a cultural misunderstanding involved in the notion that the Buddhist tradition presents the Buddha as born a royal prince, the son of a great king. In representing the Buddha as a rajan or k$atriya the tradition is effectively recording little more than that he was, in European cultural terms, a member ofa locally important aristocratic family.
A passing remark without further explanation from authors who are not experts in the field will not suffice. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
that Kshatriya is a Hindu clankśatriya are a caste, not a clan. You're mixing things up and messing things up.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 11:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Obviously Kshatriya is a Hindu caste. Who denied it? Don't distract from the subject in hand. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 12:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
While none of the above quote-farming helps your case and the sources except L. S. Cousins are not really relevant to the subject. It is absurd to say that Oxford is less reliable than the sources you have mentioned. Reading the entire source you are apparently cherrypicking the passage, since he mentions enough arguments that easily debunks your own argument that there was no Hinduism before 500 BCE. Generally the scholars having their work published by a better publishing house and having a broader scope of knowledge than mere scholars of Buddhism are considered more neutral.
I note that there is a disagreement whether he can be called Hindu or not. It can be left here for now.
None of your sources use the term "khattiya", including the one you have quoted above. See WP:OR. You can only add what has been supported by the sources. They use the term "Kshatriya" which should be retained, while "Khattiya" needs to be removed. The sentence should read as "aristocratic Kshatriya family". It has been using the "Kshatriya" term since 2014.[5] So why there is a need to change the STATUSQUO right now? Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 12:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I have no objections to using the Sanskrit term as the main term, but I would also keep the Pali-term, in brackets. Pali is the language of Theravada, one of the main strands of contemporary Buddhism. No need to bypass them. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Generally the scholars having their work published by a better publishing house and having a broader scope of knowledge than mere scholars of Buddhism are considered more neutral. - This is a misconception. Neither in academia nor in Wikipedia policy is the view of a non-specialist preferred over a specialist, and certainly not just because of the status of their publisher. The source Aman.kumar.goel provided is not from specialists in Indian history or religion, and is from a work on religious conversion which implies a certain framing of things, rather than a historical inquiry. A work focused on the field generally, or history specifically, written by a specialist ought to be treated as more authoritative than an anecdotal mention by a non-specialist in a work devoted to another topic entirely. --Spasemunki (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
That RFC was about writing by Buddhist teachers and clergy, not academic specialists in Buddhist history. The type of sources that were quoted above in response to your source are the exact sort of secondary source that Wikipedia relies, as the policy page you linked mentioned. --Spasemunki (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I just wondered why the Pali term is important for inclusion when it is not supported by the sources. But anyway I have made the edit here to reflect above discussion. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 08:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I think general practice in English-language Buddhist studies is to use the Sanskrit unless a topic is specific to Theravada only. Agree that that ought to be the approach here unless there is a specific reason why the Pali version ought to be used. --Spasemunki (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
My observation is that both Sanskrit and Pali are in such wide usage both should be mentioned. Teishin (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
For an article like this one I don't see any compelling reason not to include both. There are instances where Theravada and non-Theravada views/usage diverge where it could be misleading, but I think those can be dealt with on their own merits. --Spasemunki (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
In addition to Harvey ("The republic was not Brahmanized," that is, did not share the Brahmanical culture which is considered as one of the main roots of what we call today "Hinduism"), note that Bronkhorst, Johannes (2007), Greater Magadha: Studies in the Culture of Early India, BRILL argues that the sramana-traditions may have roots in a non-Vedic, but Indo-Aryan culture. Likewise, Afred Scheepers, De wortels van het indiase denken, argues that Buddhism and Jainism had roots in a centuries old urban that was threatened by the expanding Brahmanical culture. So, no "Hinduism" for sure; anachronistic, and ignoring the historical facts. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I think a lot of the confusion arises because the word "ksatriya" is immediately connected to "Hinduism", as if calling someone a ksatriya means they must be Hindu, because as everyone knows, all ksatriyas are Hindus! But of course, as has been established by modern scholars, there was no single "Hinduism" in the Buddha's time (it arose during the "hindu synthesis" in the medieval period) and also, the varnas were not rigidly defined legal divisions either (nor did they describe a religious affiliation), they were just descriptions of existing divisions in society, like how we say "this person is middle class", or "the American elites" etc. In this sense, "ksatriya" in the Pali canon and early Buddhist texts roughly means "elites" or "rulers". It doesn't mean a rigid caste adhering to a specific law and religious system. This is, in fact, how the early texts also tend to use the term Brahmin as well. Various Buddhists are brahmins in the Pali canon, and they are still referred to as "brahmin" in the texts even after they convert. So clearly, in the early texts, these names for social classes are not religious descriptors, merely loose social descriptions. So sure, one can change the term to the sanskrit if you like, but I think it should be clarified that "ksatriya" just meant "elite" back then, and has nothing to do with Hinduism or religion at that point in time. ☸Javierfv1212☸ 12:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
There are also articles like Mauryan Empire , and Pushyamitra Shunga where Hinduism is claimed to have been a practiced religion by the former and practiced by the corresponding historical figure in the latter, which is completely misleading, since Hinduism did not exist back then. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 09:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
It is sometimes suggested that the Buddha was a Hindu. If by Hindu is meant 'anyone adhering to a religion of Indian origin', then he obviously was. However, if Hinduism is understood as that synthesis of various traditions oriented towards the Brahmanical Vedic tradition which has been the religion of most educated Indians since at least the fifth century CE, then the Buddha was certainly not a Hindu. Indeed, Buddhism was one of the influences which led to the formation of the Hindu synthesis.
Buddist era 2563 in today of Thailand is 543+2020=2563 So, Edit correct is; the Buddha was born 623 BCE and died 543 BCE. Thai Buddhist (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Incorrect of The Buddha was born.
The buddhism in Thailand, Sri lanka and Other Buddhist countries have Visakha Bucha Day 2563 years ago. Buddist era 2563 in today is 543+2020=2563 So,
Edit correct is; the Buddha was born 623 BCE and died 543 BCE. Thai Buddhist (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
There is no direct record of the dating of the Buddha's birth and death. The birth year used in the calendar used by SE Asian & Sri Lankan Buddhists is conventional. The article discusses the different theories of the birth year of the Buddha, and the reasoning behind them. --Spasemunki (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
.jpg)
Done Partially. The article is about Buddha, not the different avatars of Vishnu. Dashavatara supports saying "some sources", since clearly in others Buddha is not listed, so I made the first part of your change, but going into who is listed when Buddha isn't is out of scope for this article. Schazjmd (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Not done. See discussions elsewhere on the page. See Joshua Jonathan/Gautama Buddha Birthplace sources and quotes.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We cannot use wikipedia as a source, and we cannot link to copyright violations (see WP:LINKVIO). NiciVampireHeart 08:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 03:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
