Talk:The Buddha/Archive 3

This page 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.

The text in question

=== Hinduism ===
Hindus believe that Buddha was an incarnation of Lord Vishnu, however, some Hindu and Buddhist leaders agree that Buddha is not incarnation of Vishnu. Hindu-Buddhist Mutual Understanding Manifesto

On 11th November 1999 at Maha Bodhi Society office, Sarnath in India, both H.H. Jagadguru

Yeah, I've seen this before. However, as you rightly pointed out, both in Hinduism and Buddhism, there is no central religious authority, which can "ban" a belief. Millions consider Buddha as an incarnation of Vishnu, and no authority can ask them to stop believing so. deeptrivia (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the Buddha article is great (although the Buddhism article could do a better job of explaining the actual religion) but I have a question; Is there more accepted "evidence" that Shakyumani Buddha was a real person than there is for Jesus Christ? Though virtually everyone with a brain recognizes that Jesus, Mohammed, and Buddha were real people (regardless of what one believes about their spiritual roles), the Jesus article has what is essentially a "MANY PEOPLE THINK JESUS WAS JUST A MYTH!" qualifier after virtually every line, while the Buddha article doesn't have a hint of this. This strikes me as bizarre since Jesus was (relatively) more recent and the majority of the New Testament and Apocrypha writings were put down within a few decades after his death.

In closing; am I missing something? Is there more evidence for Buddha's existence, or are the anti-theists finished with the Jesus article and on their way to wreck the Buddha and Mohammed articles? RolandDeschain

I'm not sure. There is some evidence that Siddhartha Gautama was a historical figure (whereas, 150 years ago, western scholars assumed he was legendary and/or from somewhere other than India/Nepal). The same can be said of Jesus, and I don't know how to compare the compellingness of the evidence for one vs. the other. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 05:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Roland, but I'll take that one step further....In the Jesus article, every fact about his life is preceded by "according to the Gospels", or some variant thereof. I don't really see that here.....it's almost as if Buddhist writings or legends are accepted as truth, but the Gospels are questionable. Just a thought...Joshcating 16:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Christian literature has been subjected to a lot more scholastic attention than other religious writings have. That's just a function of the interests of Western scholars. I have no problem in principle with including statements such as "according to ...", but I think, in general, Wikipedia considers the repetition thereof to be bad style. I know from experience that this can be a very cumbersome way of writing. I haven't read the article on Jesus lately, so I can't comment on how good its style is.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[[Image:As many might be aware, the main buddhist article is in quite mess. I'm currently trying to fork material out from that article to sister article. Previous attempt caused much protests because many objected to deletion of materials. So I will transfer fair amount of material. I will try to copy edit to make it consistent. Please be patient for a while. FWBOarticle]]

The issue of when the Buddha lived is an interesting subject and more complicated than we have generally given it credit for on Wikipedia. I did a little bit of reading about it online a couple months ago and I think I got a pretty good grasp of the basic issues. Now, I've forgotten most of it—whoops—but I plan to refresh my memory at some point and expound on that. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

TheBuddha was definitely a historical figure. There is little parallel with the historicity of Jesus Christ who is hardly mentioned by any Greek or Roman historians, whereasthere are plentyofreferences to the dynasty of Prince Siddhartha.

What is controversial is the dating of the Buddha.Chinese sources say that he was of considerable antiquity, dating at least to 1200 BCE. The present date was arrived at by Sir William Jones, who used the invasion of Alexander and the reference by Megasthenes to Sandracottus whohe mistakenly identified as Chandragupta Maurya .Megasthenes makes no mention of the Buddha or his teachings which were very prevalent during the era of Chandragupta maurya.There are other inconsistencies with the commonly accepted date of circa 500 BCE.see for instance http://www.indicethos.org/History/Misdating.html

There is evidence toshow that all the three contemporary personalities The Buddha,Zoroaster and Mahavira lived around 1800 BCE

For historical articles, it is generally considered more appropriate to use CE (Common Era) instead of the common AD (Anno Domini).

-- Mkamensek ^(talk) -The LeftOverChef 20:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• In that case, you have many edits ahead of you.

--Anon. 01:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Buddhist articles here generally use Common Era instead of the Anno Domini system. In any case, an article should use only one of these systems. I personally opt for using CE instead of AD, and BCE instead of BC. There is no official Wikipedia policy for this, AFAIK. --- Andkaha^(talk) 10:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

CE, says this Buddhist, who just wandered by. Zora 10:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand that Vaishnavas may have strong feelings on how Vishnu should be referred to, but then so does everybody else under the sun have strong feelings about their gods. Regardless of such feelings, it seems to me altogether inappropriate to use the title "Lord Vishnu" in referring to Vishnu on Wikipedia just as it would be inappropriate to refer to Jesus on Wikipedia as "Lord Jesus", or for that matter to the Buddha as "Lord Buddha". It's making claims to paramountcy that not everyone will accept. "Lord Vishnu" in any case is a redirect to "Vishnu". It seems especially inappropriate to use such titles in an article about the Buddha. RandomCritic 00:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

For the events in the Buddha's biography, it would be nice to have citations for which scriptures they are drawn from. I get the impression that there are various accounts of the Buddha's life in the Pali Canon which, while not necessarily contradicting each other, don't always seem fully integrated. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 23:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As you know, the people in Buddhas time and area never found it very important to keep track of history, at least not in chronological order. The Buddha himself only spoke in a self-biographical manner when this served as a tool for delivering some particular teaching, and these two facts (and the fact that we're dealing with the writers of the Pali Canon, in their own politial and social context, not really with the people in the text) might be the reason for the various slightly different accounts. I really (really!) recommend "The Life of the Buddha" (by Bhikkhu Nanamoli,

ISBN 955-24-0063-5) which uses the Canon to piece together the story of the life of the Buddha (all cross referenced). It's a joy to read and serves as a portal to the Canon itself. I will, however, not sit down and cross reference the Wikipedia article to it, sorry. --- Andkaha^(talk

) 23:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed, this ties well in together with my additional comment to the "Bodhi tree, etc." section on this Talk page (about where the sources for the going forth at 29, the wife and kids, are). --- Andkaha^(talk) 23:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Some

I have a suspicion that this claim is fictitious. Maybe it's just the weasel-wording of "Some Muslims believe...", but I suspect that no significant numbers of Muslims believe this. Anybody want to produce a citation to verify this statement?RandomCritic 13:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC) Update: found and included the background on this one. RandomCritic 12:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if this is mentioned somewhere and I missed it, but is it known approximately how long Buddha sat under the Bodhi tree for?

In the Udana (Ud I.1, Ud I.2, and Ud I.3), it says seven days after his experience of liberation. In the erliest sutta about his liberation (Ariyapariyesana Sutta, MN 26) there is no mentioning of length of time, or of tree. MN 36 does mention that he gains liberation during the "third watch of the night" (but does not mention a tree). So it seems that the feat itself took less than a night (not counting the years he spend preparing for it) and then he spent a week absorbing it, possibly under a tree.

(This came up in a study group I took part in). Interestingly, Both MN 26 and MN 36 says that he went forth "with the blessings of youth in the first stage of life". Does anyone know how old one is considered to be in this stage? I would guess around 16-20 or so. Neither sutta mentions wife or children. Any references to canonical sources (actual suttas, not comments or footnotes) for these later (?) additions (going forth at 29, wife and kids etc.) would be very welcomed! --- Andkaha^(talk) 22:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The article says: "[The Buddha] argued that the Arya Dharma should have the Vedas centered as the source of law and Hinduism should not advocate animal sacrifice." Come again? The Buddha argued that Vedas should be the center of Arya Dharma? - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 23:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC) no, that was a type. I meant to say that Lord Buddha did not want the Vedas at the centre of the Arya Dharma, that is why Hinduism doesn't really have an offifical book anymore, because more important Arya truths can be discovered.

I have removed the following commentary by User:131.193.170.215 from the article as it is written in a style that belongs on this page:

This section being the Hindu view of the Buddha, should be based on only on Hindu scriptural statements and not the views of some Goenka or Saraswatis. HINDU scriptures are very clear that Buddha is an avatara of Visnu. What a Buddhist feels is irrelevant while explaining Hindu view of Buddha. Hindu Scriptures(Bhagavata Purana etc.) are also very clear on the purpose of this avatara, i.e. to mislead demons. The explanation about getting rid of animal sacrifices is clearly bogus and not mentioned anywhere in any Hindu scripture.

While the Demons were mislead by this process by Buddha(the avatara), Devatas understood the true import of Buddha's(the avatara's) teachings. The way this avatara came into this world is not that simple. The avatara Buddha also does not refer to Gautama Buddha who had a material body and who himself was also mislead. Gautama Buddha was merely an intrument used by Lord Visnu as per Madhvacharya. For more details refer to the link.

Public username and password: dvaita

http://www.dvaita.org/list/list_06/msg00024.html

--Mwanner | Talk 00:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

But, demons were performing illicit animal sacrifices. So basically, it is the same thing. Demons were using Vedas as an excuse, so let's preach against Vedas. It may not be stated like this in scriptures, but that is what I heard from oral tradition. Animal sacrifices were mentioned as one of the symptoms of mankind degrading, or becoming demoniac. Two Buddhas - this also I heard from oral Hindu tradition.

can someone tell me why I can't see the entire post on Christianity?

Everything after Hinduism was cut off. I am going to revert. Maurreen 03:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Their are two ways to write where Buddha was from...You can say he was from ancient India or the Indian Subcontinent....Now which one makes more sense?....Ancient India!....IT doesnt make sense to say Buddha taught from the Indian Subcontinent....It makes more sense to say he lived in Ancient India....Their is a difference ARYAN818 20:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Sangha, can you give a citation for the statement that the Buddha completely recovered from his illness before entering parinibbana?—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The passage now cited is:

"Marvellous it is, O Lord, most wonderful indeed it is, how clear and radiant the skin of the Tathagata appears! This set of golden-hued robes, burnished and ready for wear, Lord, now that it is arranged upon the body of the Blessed One seems to have become faded, its splendor dimmed."

This doesn't say anything about the Buddha recovering his health, it just says that his skin was clear and radiant. He then explains that this is normal for Buddha on the day of his parinirvana. Granted, the concepts of sickness and health are not easily applicable to a fully enlightened being as depicted in this sutta. However, there's no need to belabour this point by saying that he did or did not recover.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 07:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

well no, but let us remember that most texts state that he died BECAUSE of eating Chunda's food, which is not really the case. What is generally shown to be a tragedy in fact seems quite happy:

after he falls ill:

1) he orders cloth of gold 2) announces he should be cremated as a universal monarch 3) he wants to pass away in a "happy place", where people once used to "eat,drink and be merry".

so, we hardly have a tragic tale of Buddha "dying in pain" or of "intestinal infarction" as a previous user posted. It seems in fact, Buddha is quite happy, he did his job sacrificing comfort of a king for 50 years and just preaching to all, and now is leaving. User:Sangha

I think one needs to make a difference between the physical person, who is clearly dying in a painful way, and the Buddha, who is about to attain his Paranirvana and whose state of mind most likely is far removed from (and hardly concerned with) his physical problems. --Andkaha^(talk) 09:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

the physical person is not clearly dying in a painful way - he seems clearly happy and well, which is why he says his physical body should be treated as a Universal Monarchs. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 65.88.88.200 (talk • contribs

) .

That is more or less what I said. The Buddha is hardly concerned with the pain in his body. He is happy. Is it only me who finds no contradiction in this? --Andkaha^(talk) 15:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Look I agree if it said he lived in India....or he lived in Ancient India...But lived in the ancient Indian Subcontinent?...THat doesnt make any sense...Its like saying George Washington lived in the NOrth American Continent...I mean Buddha lived most of his life in India, gained enlightenment in India, died in India, so lets just keep it simple...He was from India.....Come on man....ARYAN818 05:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

George Washington did live in North America. What's the problem?—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 06:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You didnt understand what I said....I agree washington lived in North America...I agree Buddha lived in the Indian subcontinent...BUt im saying that the sentence doesnt make sense...Read it yourself....IT says that Buddha was from the Ancient Indian subcontinent?....DOes that make any sense?...Ancient Subcontinent?...IT should say Ancient India...come on man ARYAN818 07:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, "ancient Indian subcontinent" is a bit awkward, but it does make sense. However, since everyone knows he lived in ancient times, and we gives his dates in the next sentence, why not just say "of the Indian subcontinent".—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 07:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

it makes sense to say "Indian subcontinent" as the subcontinent of India has many countries today and the political term "India" was not used by most ancient Indians as the subcontinent was divided by kingdoms. Also, in modern terms, Sakyamuni was born in Nepal but his blood line was related to the royal families of classical Northern India.

Also, Aryan, your posts are childish and you present no sources, it is ridiculous of you to try to erase the more precise substantive work of others -- have a little shame.

how could Gautama have had a child and still lived a "celibate" life?--User: Signor Pastrini —The preceding

Are you referring to some particular text that says that he was always celibate? If not, I see no problem with him choosing to be celibate from one point in his life, and then on. --Andkaha^(talk) 09:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my understanding is that Gautama became celibate after having had alot of sex.58.179.170.118 10:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

since buddha horse was quite famous, cant we mention his name here.

In the "Personality and character" section the phrase "He was never past exasperation" is not readily or transparently understandable, at least it wasn't to me and many of my friends i asked for clarification. Does it mean he was never exasperated or had never ending exasperation for those who misrepresented his teachings (i'm guessing the latter)? Can someone with a clear understanding of the meaning of the phrase edit it to be less ambiguous by using more common vocabulary and phrasing? Thank you. 71.240.79.139 04:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thelema In the occult philosophy of Thelema, expounded by Aleister Crowley, Siddhartha is considered to be a magus of the Argentum Astrum due to his introduction of a new Logos[citation needed]. Siddhartha is also considered saint according to the Collects of the Gnostic Mass of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica.

????????????????????????? is this a cult and is someone propagating it?

• • i dont think this belongs in the buddha article? if anyone would like to reinforce this direction, i'd like to remove the piece —The preceding
    unsigned comment was added by Soorej (talk • contribs
    ) .

Yes, please do. --MichaelMaggs 08:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

He (A.C.) was apparently studying Buddhist/Hindu meditation/yoga techiques (according to his "The Equinox of the Gods") but I can't find a reference to Siddharta.

Argenteum Astrum is a magical order, you may want to call it a cult, yes. If the Siddharta reference can't be found properly, then it makes less sense to keep those paragraphs in the article. --Andkaha^(talk

) 08:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so here are the references: [1] I can verify "The Book of Lies" reference, but it only mentions him by name and calls him one of the "dinosaurs" (the others being

Mosheh, Dionysus, and Mahmud). --Andkaha^(talk

) 09:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears I also have a copy of the Gnostic Mass mentioned in the article (wow, the things I accumulate...). Siddharta is indeed mentioned as one of the saints (the second after

Laotse) in the fifth part of the Mass. I have also edited the article ever so slightly. So, the references are in order, and I think we should keep the section in the article unless people think the Thelema is totally unworthy of mentioning. --Andkaha^(talk

) 10:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is incorrect to subject the information of some religion to the views espoused by another (doctrine/religion/cult/philosophy etc). My vote is strike this 'What the hell?' section.58.179.170.118 10:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is about a person, not about a religion. I will reinstate the Thelema section once I can properly refer to the correct printed books. Thanks for reminding me. --Andkaha^(talk) 12:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have reordered the paragraphs in this section, and tried to fix up the references. More work is needed. — Aetheling 05:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've read the Enuma Elisha and have not found anywhere in that literature of Marduk "walking on water" as claimed. Someone please provide some real sources (i.e. from the original works which have been translated and online for some time now, since I've been trying to read the translations of the original texts and so far have not found any mention)--Shravak 14:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the Christian-Judaism section is blatantly biased aginst the Christians.It is basically saying that everything in the Christian Bible is taken from Buddhist writings.Serenacw 07:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I also think that the Christian-Judaism section makes some pretty broad assumptions; while the Greeks certainly admired the Eastern philosophies they saw, they didn't really understand them, and I've never heard of any evidence that suggests Buddhism was well known in the Western World, while I have heard evidence to the contrary from philosophy texts. Matveiko 04:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised

I removed various links -- a dead link, a link to a Sri Lankan monastery, and various proselytizing or oddball links. I really should find some better links -- what we have is sad. Zora 20:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

A sentence in the lead goes as follows: "By tradition, he was born with the name Siddhārtha Gautama (Pāli: Siddhattha Gotama)."

It is unclear here by what tradition. Chinese tradition? Indian tradition? Middle-eastern tradition?

It would be very helpful for readers if this was clarified.

I believe that it's a tradition which is old enough that it is universal throughout all Buddhist regions. However, I'm not 100% sure.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 16:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but what tradition is it? There is no such thing as a 'universal' tradition in this case. For example, I could say: "By tradition, I was born with the surname Smith appended to my name John, hence John Smith." This is an Anglo-Saxon or more broadly European-Christian tradition. In a similar vein, I ask for clarification with regard to what tradition in the sentence in question in the Buddha article. One could say (in relation to the Pali language) that it is the

RaraTheAppleJuggler

10:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it means "Buddhist texts give the Buddha's personal name as such-and-such, but we are unable to verify it as a fact." The qualification does not seem particularly useful, however, as nobody is proposing an alternate name. There was once considerably more information about the Buddha's names, but it seems to have been deleted, perhaps for overbalancing the intro paragraph. A better solution might be to add a "name" section after the conception and birth section. RandomCritic 14:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. It is very interesting.

RaraTheAppleJuggler

12:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"As few of the details of the Buddha's life can be independently verified, it is difficult to gauge the historical accuracy of the these accounts. The main sources of information on Siddhārtha Gautama's life are the earliest available Buddhist texts. The following is a summary of those narratives."

In the article about Jesus, a similar statement appears, stating that the main sources of info are the gospels. However, in that article, nearly every paragraph begins with 'according to the Gospels". Here, however, other than this one breif disclaimer, nothing is said that states the historical accuracy of the info might be questionable. Its as though we are simply to accept the accuracy of the texts where this info comes from, even when they talk about the state of Gautama's mind. That just seems unrealistic to me. Joshcating 16:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that too, but I think it reads more easily than putting a disclaimer in front of every paragraph, to aknowledge that when essentially all the traditions agree, to state than and then continue speaking as if it were true, since everyone understands that the statements are only true in relation to the traditions. It might read better if this was the approach used for every legendary figure. Matveiko 22:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it did read a bit like a religious tract at times. However, it would be tedious to have the same qualifier in front of every other sentence. The existing disclaimer is brief, but it is to the point and quite prominent. It's the right smack at the top of the article. Also, at this point there has been the addition of numerous other qualifiers: "According to tradition", "All traditions agree","later tradition and legend characterized." I've added some more qualifiers to problematic areas, and with this I'm removing the POV tag. Sylvain1972 16:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

We have to keep in mind that this article is about Gautama Buddha, and Buddhism has it's own article. For instance, a lot of the material in "and Other Religions" section would be more at home in the "Buddhism" article, because the way it is written now it is more like "Buddhism as seen by other religions," not "Gautama Buddha as seen by other religions." Granted it is sometimes difficult to seperate the two, but it must be kept in mind. Sylvain1972 16:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I added the information that Mayadevi dreamt that a white elephant entered her right side and Gautama was born from her right side. I believe this is an important piece of the story which is illustrated in the picture accompanying it and also in the linked article about Mayadevi. Also I edited the text to show different stories of Mayadevi's death following Gautama's birth, based on, and after reading the Mayadevi article on Wikipedia. However my previous understanding (prior to reading the Mayadevi article on 26/10/06, the same date as these edits) of the story is that Mayadevi died shortly after (much less than a day after the birth). Please amend my edits if they don't conform with Wikipedia guidelines. I am no expert but I may make some time at a later date to properly check through the rest of the article, as I believe the story had the glaring omission of the right side birth. Mark Markkrom 12:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the source for the information you added?—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nat, Please look at the 2nd-3rd Century artwork in the article, also same period artwork in the 'Queen Maya' article in Wikipedia, where the writers have described the birth story in this way Markkrom 10:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC).

Hello, I agree with alot of people that this article is really bloated. The entire "as viewed by other religions" section is entirely unnecessary, and does little to talk about Siddhartha, the person, and not the religion. There wasn't much in that section that even talked about Siddhartha, so I felt it should be removed.

Arguably, the Teachings section should be removed too considering it's covered more aptly in the Buddhism article.

--Ph0kin 06:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

isnt the buddha's real name spelt gotama????? —The preceding

It's Gautama in Sanskrit and Gotama in Pali.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 19:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)