Talk:The Buddha/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2020

5th Century BCE is in the 400s BCE (reference Wikipedia Article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_century_BC)

This makes 6th Century BCE in the 500s BCE and the 4th Century BCE in the 300s.

There is a date 'missmatch' between the opening line of this article and the supposed 'born and died' dates of the article, and it makes the entire concept of the information confusing and misleading. Please fix. THANKS!!!

From the Text of this article: The Buddha (also known as Siddhartha Gotama or Siddhārtha Gautama)[note 3] was a philosopher, mendicant, meditator, spiritual teacher, and religious leader who lived in Ancient India (c. 5th to 4th century BCE).[5][6][7][note 4]

vs. Born Siddhartha Gautama

c. 563 BCE or 480 BCE Lumbini, Shakya Republic (according to Buddhist tradition)[note 1] Died c. 483 BCE or 400 BCE (aged 80)[1][2][3] Kushinagar, Malla Republic (according to Buddhist tradition)[note 2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.78.128.203 (talk) 09:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Pronounced as Gautam Budhh not Gautama Budhha

As per Indian scriptures, his name is Gautam Budhh but to help non-native Hindi and Sanskrit speakers , translators have added "a" at the end. So it should be pronounced as Gautam Budhh instead of Gautama Buddha. ManavChugh10 (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry - pronunciation in which Indian language? — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Revered or worshipped?

Hello dear editors. Per my recent addition to the lead. I'm back from a cursory review of all the archives on this topic, and there has been a lot of discussion. However, I have not found a satisfactory conclusion (or consensus) on why we should pretend hundreds of millions of Buddhists, most of whom have great grandparents who are also Buddhists, should be told "you don't know your guy," or "you're doing Buddhism wrong." And let's not quibble about what it means to "worship" -- altars, gifts, intercessory prayers, demons, spirits, miracles and that whole reincarnation thing are not encompassed by the word "revere."

The lead needs to be clear, as are the leads on Mohammad and Jesus, that this is more than just a historical figure. And whether or not the Buddha himself wanted to be considered a deity is not enough for us to feel entitled to erase all the cultures who treat him as such and have done so for millennia. Let's not let presentism and Eurocentrism warp the WP:SKYBLUE fact that "he who transcends rebirth" is not merely a philosopher for our sits in Bushwick. There are many Buddhisms, there are many Buddhas -- they all belong in this article. It is unskillful of us to think we get to choose the one we like. Per WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE. DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Bravo @DolyaIskrina. Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2020

In the section "First Sermon and Foundation of the Sangha", change:

"The Pali text reports that after the first sermon, the ascetic Koṇḍañña (Kaundinya) became the first arahant (liberated being) and the first Buddhist bhikkhu or monastic"

to

"The Pali text reports that after the first sermon, the ascetic Koṇḍañña (Kaundinya) became the first stream-enterer (one who has comprehended the dhamma and is on the path to arahantshit) and the first Buddhist bhikkhu or monastic."

Sources:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html (kondana gained the "dustless, stainless dhamma-eye". This is a typical description of a stream-enterer) https://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/appendixes/personalities/annakondanna.htm (mentions that he attained during a later sermon) 67.216.49.119 (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2020

in the historical section the city where the Buddha was raised is "Kapilvastu" that is a misspelling. It is "Kapilavastu" and the correct spelling is found throughout the article. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing out the typo. RudolfRed (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2021

122.254.85.89 (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2021 (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. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2021

To add to the music section:

Please change 'blank line' to ZEN AND NOW (2020) A musical about the life of Siddhartha with website www.zenow.net.

GNIRAOS (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. See WP:WTAF. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Reference 187 (Williams 2002)

Reference 187, Williams (2002) does not have a full source listed in the article. The wikipedia article for "Buddhism" contains the source "Williams, Paul (2002), Buddhist Thought (Kindle ed.), Taylor & Francis" which is the only reference to a writing from a Williams in 2002 on the topic I can find, so I assume this is the source though I do not have the book to confirm this, nor am I familiar with editing wikipedia articles in order to fix this. Hope this helps! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.24.18 (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2021

Please give me some time to do editing P123M7KV (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Gautama Buddha

@Joshua Jonathan: Indeed it is an improvement, Bhagavathi is not correct as Bhagavto is the correct spelling. Yeah it can be possible, I don't know by the way, Bhagavathi can be a variation in different languages, but even in such cases Bhagavato or Bhagavata is more correct, as it is from pali or sanskrit, scriptural languages, and english also use this variant only. And the word Jina, which is here the title of Buddha, it's link takes us to the Arihant (Jainism) page, which are totally different topics, only the title is given to both the Buddhas and Arihantas. And the point of more commonly used seems improper, I don't know much about it's popularity in Jainism but it is a very popular and common title and one of the most widely used title for Buddha in Buddhist scriptures and texts. The word Buddha itself is very less used, instead the titles such as Bhagava, Jina, Mahesi, Tathagata are widely used in texts. Please share your views. JaMongKut (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see it earlier, but the explained revert of that Vaishnavism line, you reverted it unexplainedly, could you please tell the reason? JaMongKut (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC) JaMongKut (talk) 07:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Bhagavati, diff, edit-summary "not an improvement": guess you're right there; see Bhagavati.
• Jina, diff, edit-summary "not an improvement": "not an improvement referred to your editing of jina, moving the Jain-context downwards. You removed the link to Jina, downplaying the primary referent/meaning.
• Dashavatara, diff, edit-summary "correct info": the info is correct, and relevant. But I've removed it again, as being undue.

Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Moving the Jain context downward, I think is necessary, as the title here is given to Buddha as to do nothing with Jainism or Arihantas. The only thing was the title was shared by both of them. So keeping it as secondary info in parantheses that the title is also used for others would be correct. Also the point there was mentioned, it is more commonly in Jainism, but as already in my above message, it is also very widespread in Buddhism. And how would one know, where it is more common. Hence I tried to compromise that point. JaMongKut (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you're trying to isolate Buddhism from it's context; the shared title has a lot to do with the sramana-milieu in which Buddhism and Jainism, and also the Upanishadic mobement, arose. No need to obscure that shared context, or present Buddhism as some 'monolithic' phenomenon. And regarding "And how would one know, where it is more common," it's quite ovious that "jina" is primarily a Jain-term. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2021

There's a spelling error: "In response to the succes of Buddhism" should be "In response to the success of Buddhism". VickiPeteIan (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Query on incomplete citation

Does anyone know what ref 390/1 ( Janet (2012)) refer to? There's nothing in the biblio; perhaps this book? Aza24 (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24: If you'll give me a few minutes.. I'm looking through the page history. Will come back with an answer, hopefully. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24: Situation update: this seems to be the first edit which added this; from an account (Special:Contributions/Ppn_vn) which has all the signs of an SPA concerned about Caodaism (the edit here is, unsurprisingly, about that too). Given that there is no full reference given to complement the sfns, and that there never was, I'd recommend either of the following:

• Removing the source and tagging with {{cn}}
• Removing the material entirely

I would not recommend putting the book you give, as it appears to be a general book about Buddhism by a practitioner, hence dubious as to why such a book would be describing details of a new religious movement; especially between pages 3 and 9 [early in the book...], and is also not the kind of academic source that is preferred for writing an encyclopedia (Nirvana! The one time that I can link to WP:SCHOLARSHIP whilst not debating about it with the usual...). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I've opted to remove it. The sect seems too minor to warrant a section—especially an uncited one—and it ranks Buddha in its religion with Jesus, Laozi and Confucius but I don't see it mentioned on those pages. Thanks for hunting this down. I was hoping my amazon link to the crappy book was the wrong one but alas :) Aza24 (talk) 06:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2021

I want to specify clearly that Buddha was born in Nepal . It is not clear here. 43.231.208.232 (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2021

Gautam Buddha was born in nepal ,not ancient India .When Gautam Buddha was born the unified country of nepal existed.Gautam Buddha was Born in Lumbini ,Rupandehi District Of Lumbini Pradesh Of Nepal 103.124.97.227 (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Birth category

Gotitbro, What do you mean by "anachronism"? Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 12:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Nepalese is a modern ethnic/national term adding that here by creating new cats of the 5th/6th century BC is anachronism. This has been discussed numerous times here (in the archives). Gotitbro (talk) 12:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Gotitbro, Indian is a modern ethnic/national term also. "India" did not exist back in the days also. So why is he tagged with those categories? Either remove them or add Nepalese categories ass well. Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 14:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Those are long-standing cats and "Indian" cats have been used here on the wiki for pre-modern figures from the Indian subcontinent. There is a reason pre-modern figures from Turkey/similar places (e.g. St. Paul, Jesus, Muhammad) aren't labelled categorized anachronic cats [e.g. Turkish]. All of this has already been discussed at this page innumerable times (see the archives). Gotitbro (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2021 (2)

Change:

Gautama Buddha, popularly known as the Buddha (also known as Siddhattha Gotama or Siddhārtha Gautama or Buddha Shakyamuni)

To

In, Buddhism Gautama Buddha, popularly known as the Buddha (also known as Siddhattha Gotama or Siddhārtha Gautama or Buddha Shakyamuni) UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Your suggested change would result in "In Buddhism, Gautama Buddha ... was a Śramaṇa who lived in ancient India..."

No, the fact stated in the lead sentence is not a subject that resides solely in the context of Buddhism. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Buddha was born in Lumbini, Nepal

I don't see anything wrong with this. Every evidence says Buddha was born in Lumbini. Just because of some claims the fasts cant be undone. If you are looking for some reliable sources then What more than UNESCO or even India themself. Check these sources:

• link1 https://en.unesco.org/silkroad/silk-road-themes/world-heritage-sites/lumbini-birthplace-lord-buddha
• link2 UNESCO https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/666/
• link3 Indian ministry https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-india-says-buddha-was-born-in-lumbini-which-is-in-nepal-2836796
• link4 https://www.india.com/news/india/no-doubt-buddha-was-born-in-nepal-india-tries-to-calm-the-storm-over-jaishankars-remarks-after-nepal-takes-objection-4106806/
• link5 https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/gautam-buddha-was-born-in-nepal-no-doubt-says-india-amid-controversy-over-s-jaishankars-comment-2276775
• link6 Historical proof https://www.nbcnews.com/sciencemain/religious-roots-buddhas-birthplace-traced-back-2-600-years-2d11648772

Changes to be made:
Gautama Buddha, popularly known as the Buddha (also known as Siddhattha Gotama or Siddhārtha Gautama or Buddha Shakyamuni), was a Śramaṇa who was born in Lumbini, present-day Nepal and lived in ancient India (c. 5th to 4th century BCE).
It should be something like this. Bishal Rawal88 (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Search the talkpage-archives for "Lumbini," and you'll see that this topic has been discussed ad infinitum. His birthplace is irrelevant for his historical impact, and therefore are not mentioned in the lead. They're only relevant for present-day Nepalese and Indian nationalists. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I understand your point, but the birthplace is listed as Nepal here, actually the Buddha spent 51 years practicing and preaching in India...etc, in general, just the conclusion is, he is Indian. 2001:EE0:41C1:56A8:21B0:523E:9D11:C087 (talk) 10:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2021

"who lived in ancient India " The above line gives an impression that buddha was born in india . It doesnot mention at first to confirm buddha's birthplace but rather goes to say that he lived in ancient india. While this text is correct however since we have a seperate country called india in today's time, it creates an impression that he was born in india. Please correct this and remove this line . It can be replaced by "who was born in Nepal".

This is a matter of national pride and i hope you understand this and remove any text which confuse readers to believe something else than the actual reality and truth. 92.236.167.245 (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: It is mentioned several times that he was born in Nepal. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Related move request

See Talk:Buddha (disambiguation)#Requested move 2 September 2021. —Srnec (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 4 September 2021

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

The result of the move request was: not moved.

3 editors (including the proposer) support the move per WP:COMMONNAME. 6 editors oppose it as insufficiently WP:PRECISE, including 3 members of WikiProject Buddhism. I find there is consensus not to move. (non-admin closure) Havelock Jones (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Gautama Buddha → Buddha – At this ongoing move discussion there is currently clear consensus that this article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term Buddha. The current name of this article is rarely used in Buddhism; he is referred to as simply “Buddha”. We do not title Jesus as "Jesus of Nazareth" or Muhammad as "Muhammad ibn Abdullah". Onceinawhile (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure this discussion should have been started when the other was in progress, it would be better to wait to see the outcome and if its not moved then we can look at moving this one to "Buddha". Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

They are connected discussions, so this allows editors to comment on both if they wish. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• Close this discussion as overlapping confusingly with an existing RM. PamD 16:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

  PamD, there is clear consensus at the other RM. If someone wants to close it early they are welcome to. It would help if people who vote at the other one also vote here. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support. The other RM is now closed and clearly affirms that the topic here is the primary topic for “Buddha”. I think it’s even more clear that the most common name is just Buddha. Am I missing something? —В²C ☎ 04:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, you are missing that most editors commenting at the other RM said Gautama Buddha is primary for Buddha, so according to them this page should stay at its present name. See Buddhahood for an explanation of why Buddha, although redirected here, does not fit the full descriptor. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - the commonname is not "Buddha" but "the Buddha." Buddha is a generic term, applied to several (mythological) beings, and as a'general' descriptor ("he's a Buddha"). As for the comparisons above: the relevant one for Jesus is "Jesus Christ." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • You refute your own argument with that example. Jesus Christ is a PRIMARYREDIRECT to Jesus. Anyway, Buddha is the common name for the Buddha. —В²C ☎ 19:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC) —В²C ☎ 19:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Clear primary topic of Buddha IMO and I think by consensus, so we should go by the more concise name, which is also far more common. Ticks all the boxes. Andrewa (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose, see the page Buddhahood, Buddha is not one person but those who attain. Gautama was the one who defined much of the process. This discussion was closed prematurely, as it was held up by the other RM between September 4 to the 12th and should reopen and continue. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for letting me know, and sorry for any disruption. I just jumped into this one without looking into the procedure for conflicting moves. ASUKITE 03:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks. I don't know if its writ procedure but seems fair after this discussion was frozen-in-place by the other. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  Randy Kryn, can you please explain your argument here in the context of your vote here[1]? You are the only editor who has participated in both so far. I believe that Buddha should be a page title – either an article title or a disambiguation title. Can you explain why you would like it to remain a redirect? Onceinawhile (talk) 08:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• As Srnec and Narky point out in that RM, just as Christ redirects to Jesus the meaning of the word is not exclusive to Jesus (see Christ (title) and compare with Buddha (title) which redirects to Buddhahood)Judging from that RM, if all of its participants had commented here you'd likely have seven more Opposed. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  Randy Kryn, I don't understand. That only makes sense if our article is called Jesus Christ, which would parallel Gautama Buddha (or maybe "Lord Buddha"). To follow your logic, the page called "Jesus" should redirect to Jesus (name). Can you explain? Onceinawhile (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Can't explain any further than I have from this quadrant of the Bodhi Tree. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  This laziness is why it can be so difficult to build consensus around topics like this. It really needs thought and engagement, which too many editors are not willing to give. I don’t claim to have the right answer, just the desire to work our way towards it. “Fly by votes” with poor explanations are damaging to our project, since they might be wrong but the writer doesn’t care enough to find out. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Please read again, and then read Wikiman5676's comments directly below this discussion. There are many articles with so-and-so Buddha, so the first name differentiates. This one is Gautama: As Srnec and Narky point out in that RM, just as Christ redirects to Jesus the meaning of the word is not exclusive to Jesus (see Christ (title) and compare with Buddha (title) which redirects to Buddhahood). Judging from that RM, if all of its participants had commented here you'd likely have seven more Opposed. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for trying again. We are talking past each other; perhaps neither of us are being clear. All the arguments at the other RM were about primarytopic for the word Buddha – I think we are agreed there. Yet here you are arguing the opposite – you are contradicting those who you say you agree with.

Per all the primarytopic arguments, when we say “Buddha” on its own, the vast majority of the time we mean the subject of this article. Just like saying “Muhammad” alone, we usually wouldn’t be referring to “Muhammad Ali”. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

You say "when we say “Buddha” on its own, the vast majority of the time we mean the subject of this article". This actually depends on the Buddhist tradition you are talking about. This is only true in Theravada Buddhism. If you go to East Asia and you say "Buddha" people might think you're actually talking about Amitabha Buddha for example, since this Buddha is one of the most popular ones in East Asia (see: Pure Land Buddhism). Also, in Tibetan Buddhism, Sakyamuni is important, but so are numerous other Buddhas, and just saying "Buddha" without clarifying which one you are talking about, would not be clear at all. ☸Javierfv1212☸ 19:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose It is confusing to only put Buddha because of the term Buddhahood, and that there are multiple Buddha's in Buddhism. Sumedha Buddha, Dipankara Buddha, Kassapa Buddha. Gautama Buddha is the best because it avoids this confusion. In Buddhist texts you will even often find the term "a buddha". Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd like to add that the WP:CRITERIA for naming includes the criteria of precision, meaning it must unambiguously identify the topic. Gautama Buddha does the best to distinguish from terms like Buddhahood or other Buddhas. Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Buddhism has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 03:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose For a non-Buddhist (non-expert), there may be just one Buddha. However, there are several Buddhas (Buddhahood) in Buddhism. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons already stated by others (Buddha is a title which is given to millions of beings not the historical figure). The name of the article should remain as is. The page 'Buddha' should be a disambiguation page. ☸Javierfv1212☸ 18:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose "Buddha" is a term in Buddhism that is applied to beings other than Siddharta Gautama. Note Budai, the "Laughing Buddha" or "Maitreya Buddha"; also note Amitābha Buddha. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

life is not a like animal. life is lika a helping each other to survive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.222.56 (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2021

Five companion of Buddha Assaji, Mahanama, Vappa, Bhaddiya and Kondanna Deveshjoshi7300 (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2021 (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. — IVORK _Talk 04:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Gautama Is not Buddha!!!

Hi, I am Japanese immigrant who lives in US. I have known about Buddism since I was in Japan. And Gautama “Shittardah(?)” is not a Buddha. This name translation is bringing so much of misunderstanding about Buddism. Buddha is not the founder’s name. Buddha is more like “condition of peace in every way”. Like “Shema status”. Gautama is the one who found out the secret about that. (I personally believe that was God’s revaluation though,,) So Buddhists are not worshipping statue of founder. I want you to study more and change his name to Gautama Shittarda, not a “Buddha”. Thank you so much.

Miyo Tanizawa 2600:8803:B205:C700:C7:703E:39:915B (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Miyo Tanizawa,

    There is already a redirect page for Gautama Buddha entitled Siddhartha Gautama which is Shakyamuni Buddha's personal name and currently it is the third most common name used to lookup this article.  Most people look for Gautama Buddha [169,000 views], followed by Buddha [6,000 views] and then Siddhartha Buddha [885 views], Shakyamuni Buddha [622 views].

Hanbud (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2021

And light of Asia. 2409:4064:21C:981C:7141:29DE:F53D:27DF (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2021 (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. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Controversial Location

Why does it states that he lived in India while this topic is highly controversial right now. It's causing a lot of conflict around social media. Madhavpoudel123 (talk) 06:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Misleading Information

1. . His Name is Siddhartha Gautham not Gautama.
2. . He was born in Nepal not in India.
3. . Lumbini comes under the territory of Nepal.

202.51.89.222 (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

There may be an issue with Romanization of the name. As for where he was born, the article notes it's now Nepal, but the article refers to it as it was known at the time of the event. —C.Fred (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Social

Why is Gautam Buddha declared a national hero 182.93.78.170 (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2022

Gautama buddha was born In Nepal(Lumbini) 103.95.18.149 (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

 Already done According to the Buddhist tradition, Gautama was born in Lumbini, now in modern-day Nepal, and raised in Kapilavastu, which may have been either in what is present-day Tilaurakot, Nepal or Piprahwa, India ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Cause of death in infobox

Are we really giving credence to a single, speculative medical article written two millenia later based on anecdotal data? Surely better to just leave this blank. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Gautama Buddha in other religions

Some of the entries in this setion are barely a sentence long and deserve to be elaborated. (Taoism, Christianity, Manichaeism, Baha'i Faith, etc.)

e.g. it should be explained why the Buddha is regarded as one of the Manifestations of God, not only the fact that he is. Also does a religion regard other beings as manifestations of god and how are the respective religions influenced by this.

Either elaborate on the stubs, or delete them. They do not add any meaningful knowledge.

Hskoppek (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2022

103.225.244.93 (talk) 10:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Buddha born in Nepal

 Already done See above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Please add a Birth religion

Suddhodana held a naming ceremony on the fifth day and invited eight Brahmin scholars to read the future. All gave similar predictions.[133] Kondañña, the youngest, and later to be the first arhat other than the Buddha, was reputed to be the only one who unequivocally predicted that Siddhartha would become a Buddha.[135]

Early texts suggest that Gautama was not familiar with the dominant religious teachings of his time until he left on his religious quest, which is said to have been motivated by existential concern for the human condition. Apart from the Vedic Brahmins, the Buddha's lifetime coincided with the flourishing of influential Śramaṇa schools of thought like Ājīvika, Cārvāka, Jainism, and Ajñana.

So please add the birth religion as unknown or Śramaṇa or non-Vedic. Or please keep the religion section blank in the info box.

But according to Jacob Kinnard's book he's a Sanātani/Hindu.

References

• I suggest we just remove the religion line altogether. It is already absent on pages such as Jesus and Muhammad due to the contentious nature of such labels given that major religious figures can both shift their doctrines during their lifetimes and be retroactively claimed by all manner of different religious groups. It is enough and most accurate to say that the Buddha is "Known for: Founding Buddhism". Iskandar323 (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: exactly. I have the same thoughts. We should keep the religion section blank cause there's no proof that Gautama Buddha said by himself that his teachings will become a religion or he intended to make a religion. Usoejw9 (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The Buddha created whole institutions based on novel teachings, including orders of monks/nuns, so I disagree with your point about intentionality. But my point stands. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Buddha did create Buddhism. But Buddhism didn't come to existence as a religion before or when Buddha was alive. So if there's any proof that Gautama Buddha said by himself that his teachings will become a religion then provide me. Or it's better to leave the religion section blank. Usoejw9 (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Your recent addition in religion i.e. vedic and non vedic is faulty because paper doesn't mention Buddha's religion, rather the author said that Sakya clan was mixed of Vedic and Non vedic, and you interpreted it as Buddha being mixed of Vedic and Non vedic religion. You should get some WP:RS which states explicitly that he was born in this religion or something, otherwise don't engage in WP:EDITWAR and discuss the matter here beforehand, regarding removal of religion column altogether, I partly agree seeing the page of Jesus and Muhammad, you can discuss that here and get the consensus, as the topic is fairly popular, I will suggest to tag it for WP:RfC as well, so other opinions can be obtained. Sajaypal007 (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

My recent addition isn't faulty. Buddha before enlightenment was in a Vedic & non-Vedic mixed religion. You can also see Jacob Kinnard's chapter 1, page 1 where he proved that Buddha was a Hindu by birth & Buddhism emerged from Hinduism. Usoejw9 (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Just throwing it out there that no baby is any religion at birth. These are labels applied by society. Babies are normally busy working on things like hand-to-eye co-ordination. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Then should I create another topic blanking the religion section from info box? You're talking like society didn't make Buddhism a religion. Now-a-days if a teacher teaches some student, will they create a religion out of their study? Again Buddhism wasn't a religion when Buddha was alive. Usoejw9 (talk) 05:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• WP:SOCKSTRIKE — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

About ancient india

What ancient india? Where as per history there was no country known as India but a bunch of small Hindu countries. The oldest country of south Asia is Nepal and Buddha lived in Nepal . He Was born in Nepal. If its about ancient Nepal then talk about Greater Nepal in which the place where he died also belongs. Razat Rai (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The original birth place of buddha was in lumbini situated in Nepal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.95.18.149 (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Lmao you need to read some history or perhaps you need to go back to school itself. Ancient India covers Nepal, Pakistan and also Bangladesh as these lands were historically always ruled by an Indian empire or dynasty Varenxvkx (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Ancient India

An editor is repeatedly changing the lead sentence from "of South Asia" to "of ancient India." Modern sources reference ancient civilizations using terms of reference specific to broad geographical regions of which the civilizations are a part. So, West Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, East Asia, Central Asia are preferred to Near East, Far East, Middle-East, India, Indian-subcontinent (unless the reference is to something specifically geological). Wikipedia's Indus Valley Civilisation page, for example, begins with, "The Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC), also known as the Indus Civilisation, was a Bronze Age civilisation in the northwestern regions of South Asia, lasting from 3300 BCE to 1300 BCE, and in its mature form from 2600 BCE to 1900 BCE." The editor wants Buddha to be described as a philosopher of ancient India a link that redirects to History of India so fraught the "ancient India" bit is. It is no used much in modern sources, except those published in the Republic of India and some more old-fashioned British sources. Pretty much all important departments of Indology have changed names to South Asian Studies. The Buddha was born in what is today Nepal, although in the terai lowlands not far from the Indian border. Using "ancient India" a favorite of Indian nationalists, is insulting to people of Nepal among other things. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

History doesn't care if a fact is insulting to someone or not. Truth is, ancient India covers countries such as India, pakistan, nepal and bangladesh as most of the countries in south asia except India and Nepal are artificially formed due to the effects of colonization. There wasn't a kingdom or a place named 'Nepal' during the time of Buddha but there was infact a geographical region named "Bharata"(india) as stated in the 'Vishnu Purana'. Varenxvkx (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

This is not the place for that argument. Make on the Indus Valley Civilisation page where you can be effectively countered. The reason that the Buddha is South Asia's first historical figure is not some mid-first-millennium CE mythological rumination of Hinduism's ahistorical culture, Vishnu Purana, but the Pāli Canon of ca 3rd century BCE, and written down two hundred years later. Sri Lanka where it was preserved has never been a part of ancient India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, the article should mention South Asia and not India which didn't exist in his time.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

What makes Vishnu Purana 'mytholigical'? there is a verse which mentions India in that and thus it becomes 'mytholigical'? lol. And Mahaveera was an older contemporary of Buddha, so I don't know how you say that Buddha was India's first historical figure. Shows your knowledge about Indian history.Varenxvkx (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Duplicative Sanskrit and Pali in the lead

The list of names in the lead has become unwieldy with the addition of duplicative Sanskrit/Pali transliterations for three different names. My feeling is that the lead should stick to Sanskrit giving the seemingly higher prevalence of the Sanskrit transliterations of these names overall, but perhaps a separate section on names, further detailing the Pali versions is also required. As it stands, however, the weight given to all of these transliterations simply makes the opening sentence of the article somewhat less than readily digestible, and will be a hinderance and not a help to most readers. Happy to hear any other suggestions though. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Of course not. See Britannica, for example: Buddha, (Sanskrit: “Awakened One”) clan name (Sanskrit) Gautama or (Pali) Gotama, personal name (Sanskrit) Siddhartha or (Pali) Siddhattha, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Of course not what? Or course it's not an illegible jumble? Because it surely is. I invited other suggestions. Suggest something. Be part of the solution, not the problem. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

They appeared first in Pali. Get rid of the Sanskrit. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

An illegible jumble? An incomprehensible or indecipherable mass of entangled, entwined, or jumbled words, but illegible? You can read it. So, please tell me what it is you don't understand, and I'll fix it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Put both versions in a note, by language. Whatever the Buddha spoke it wasn't Pali, which was yet to appear. But it is a scriptural language for Buddhism. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I mean they appeared in recorded form first in the Pali canon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The question for me is: where did the Sanskrit come from? Did the Pali canon give the Sanskrit versions of its names and terms, or was the Pali, i.e. its Buddha-names and Buddhism-related neologisms, later translated into classical Sanskrit? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Jesus spoke Aramaic and the new testament was written in Koine Greek, but we don't defer to Aramaic and Greek for every name and term in Christianity. I find the dynamic between Pali and Sanskrit fascinating, but that has no bearing on what terminology should be preferred in an encyclopedic setting. In terms of sheer prevalence of commonplace terms, Sanskrit is king. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• First, Iskandar323 is not telling us the whole story, for I have already answered their question on my user talk page.
• Second, I am not a Sanskritist, let alone a Rg Vedist. By classical Sanskrit, I meant the preserved language from the time Sanskrit became a dead language not the "classical era" of Sanskrit. In other words, forget the Greek and the Aramaic, I was wondering if the bulk of the Sanskritization in Buddhism may have happened much later than even what KJV 1611 constituted for the Bible, and nowhere as creatively.
• Some was certainly in place in Nalanda ca 500 CE when Xunzang appeared and also in the Tibetan traditions (I would guess). But for the bulk, I was speculating if it might have been European Sankritists and Indian nationalists who were at work and whether it happened in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The Indian nationalists were attempting to reclaim the prodigal son, whom they had booted out 1500 years earlier. I could be wrong, of course, but that sort of thing would be known.
• The paternalism is at work on this page as we speak. Two editors seemingly blessed a final sentence in the lead.

• (a) One edited it.
• (b) After I—remembering that I had once purchased the ten Vishnus in South India after looking at quite a few other tens, but never happened on a ninth who had strayed away, or for that matter the tenth Tennyson was waiting for, figuratively speaking, removed the offensive sentence—
• (c) the other quickly supplied two sources, which of course in the manner of dismissal-ists, they forgot to read with any care.
• (d) The textual care was left for me to show, which I did almost a week ago in this expansion
• (e) Well, lo and behold, today the editor of first renown, has removed all the Vishnus, apparently with a straight face. i.e. the algorithm thus is:
• (f) Go to step (b).
• I'm off to more peaceful climes. All the best, Iskandar323, edit it in the manner that moves you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear Fowler, there is a part before part (a), when the sentence was actually added in Jan 2022 (cherrypicking). The part (a) just has me adding a better link and correcting the italics. (b) Yes in South India, Buddha is generally not included, however the "standard" or the "popular" list includes him. We have had numerous discussions on the same on Avatar and Dashavatara (e) the Vishnus were not removed, but added to the relevant section. I don't believe talking on Buddha avatar warrants a para in the Buddha lead. Hopefully, we will hear the full facts from you next time. Also, this is a discussion about the lead sentence, which has nothing to with the said para. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I know that of course. But you edited it and let it remain in some altered form. You did not think then it was worthy of being banished from the lead. When I removed it with the explanation very similar to what Wendy has in her book, it was reinstated by Pat (who I call your tag-team-er because the evidence of you two colluding on some pages seems to be more than that between two random editors.) along with two sources, one of which was Wendy. When I then expanded the first citation to explain what the induction into the Great Vaishnava Hall of Fame (as it were) betokened for the Buddha and Buddhism, you it was who removed my edit.

It is the same with linking the image name to a poorly written page. I wrote a long caption from three sources which explained the image better than the linked page. Between you and Pat, my explanations keep getting removed, and at each stage you both are content to offer Wiki-rules (BRD, etc) as shorthand for moral explanations, i.e. a system of ethics. What is that system of ethics that inform your edits? I get the sense that it is whatever you think a Wiki-rule will allow you to get away with.

In other words, the system of ethics seems inconsistent or opaque, only ritual rules, the kinds of issues the Buddha would have encountered in his day dealing with Brahmanism. This is my biggest problem. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Pat, for example, for years was copying and pasting images and text from CrCommons Journal articles because WP allows it. When they was upbraided for copying without acknowledgement, they began to supply brief edit summaries with their just-as-prolific copying. It is the same kind of appeal to ritual. The ritual has some unwritten rules, that you can copy but as an illustration once in every rare while and in keeping with giving appropriate credit to the person who has done the hard work. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Please examine the Gautama_Buddha#Earliest_sources Please tell me how we know that the images are Pat's? What is their value? Is WP about providing encyclopedic knowledge meant for others, or an exercise in solipsistic reasoning written for oneself? For if you truly think it is the first, you cannot allow yourself to violate simple rules of attribution and deduction. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: "Pat (who I call your tag-team-er because the evidence of you two colluding on some pages seems to be more than that between two random editors.)" Nonsense. I am barely aware of the contributions of User:Redtigerxyz. It would be fun to see what "evidence" you have... As for your claim "OR infested, pro-Hindu, anti-Buddhism, half-article" [2] in relation to the Buddha Preaching his First Sermon (Sarnath), apparently nonsense too: the references I have just added (Upinder Singh and the Sarnath Museum Catalogue) all broadly confirm the content of the article. Finally your qualms about reusing material from scientific works published under Creative Commons 4.0 license hardly stand: the images are highly welcome on Wikipedia (an example), and the few excerpts I once used were scientific descriptions for which I prefered to leave the experts speak in their own words rather than poorly paraphrase, all properly attributed (Diannaa only taught me how to tag such borrowings better, and several remain to this day). Enough with these ridiculous and blatantly false accusations, such behaviour does not honour you. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't wade into this discussion but, without comment on the content itself, the section Gautama_Buddha#Earliest_sources seems like a lot of WP:OR to me with its liberal use of translations of early texts as sources (not to mention using a source from 1925 for the "earliest source" claim). Also, I don't like the idea of extracting sub images from an existing image. That extraction is unsourced and gives the appearance of an attempt to bolster the claims made in the text (in other words, more WP:OR). But, I should add that I don't question the good faith of any of the editors here, all (पाटलिपुत्र, Redtigerxyz, Fowler&fowler) are long standing productive editors. So, perhaps, focusing on the actual content rather than everyone throwing accusations around may not be a bad idea? --RegentsPark (comment) 15:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Thanks. These images are only straightforward illustrations of referenced text, they are not an original statement in themselves. I believe they add to the understanding of the text, but if the community decides otherwise, I'm fine with that. There are many more sources available regarding the analysis of these famous and specific inscriptions, I'll be happy to add them.पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: I think that the sources should be from modern historians (to go as far back as 1925 to state that something is the earliest source is dubious because who know what has been discovered in the last 100 years). And, avoid translations of original manuscripts or stele inscriptions because every translation needs to be contextualized by an academic historian. I'm not sure of the extracted images either but, admittedly, I'm a source purist so perhaps I'm being overly anal there.--RegentsPark (comment) 15:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: For example, the inscription "Bhagavato Sakamunino Bodho" from Bharhut is specifically described and illustrated in Sarao, K. T. S. (16 September 2020). The History of Mahabodhi Temple at Bodh Gaya. Springer Nature. p. 80. ISBN 978-981-15-8067-3., I'm just zooming for clarity on the area he mentions ("between the two arches"), to illustrate his point clearly. The "Buddha Sakyamuni" inscription at Lumbini is described in detail by Kai Weise in Weise, Kai (29 October 2013). The Sacred Garden of Lumbini: Perceptions of Buddha’s birthplace. UNESCO. p. 46-47. ISBN 978-92-3-001208-3., with translation and photograph, and discussion of the name "Buddha Sakyamuni" in the inscription appears in Beckwith, Christopher I. (2017). Greek Buddha: Pyrrho's Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia. Princeton University Press. p. 168. ISBN 978-0-691-17632-1. or Bronkhorst, Johannes (2016). "How the Brahmins Won: Appendix X Was there Buddhism in Gandhāra at the Time of Alexander?". Brill: 483–489, page 6 of the apendix. doi:10.1163/9789004315518_016. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help). Again I'm just zooming on the relevant "Buddha Sakyamuni" portion to illustrate their point , or I could leave the whole picture if more adequate (but obviously harder to understand). And these are but a few of the sources and illustrations by recent academics about these famous inscriptions. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, don't get too excited by the happenstance of the earliest surviving manuscripts. Much the earliest surviving long manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible are in Greek (the Great uncial codices), with Hebrew manuscripts only many centuries later (see List of Hebrew Bible manuscripts, especially Leningrad Codex and Aleppo Codex). I'm sure you know the situation with the Rigveda. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Potential copyright violations

This article just scored highly for potential copyright violations from several of its sources, including one paper and two university websites, in this copyvios report. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 April 2022

The page still uses {{pp-semi-indef}}, even though the page is now under full protection. This makes people (unless they attempt to edit of course) think the page is still under semi-protection which is incorrect. Needs to be changed. interstatefive  (talk) - just another roadgeek 03:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Though I do see that tag in the source code, I see an "F" lock in the top right of the main page, indicating full protection. I don't think this needs to be done. Natg 19 (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Can confirm its probably not required to change it. It isnt appearing in Category:Wikipedia_pages_with_incorrect_protection_templates, and therefore should be fine as is. pp-semi-indef seems to just deal with fully protected fine. Aidan9382 _(talk) 10:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)