Jump to content

Talk:The Buddha

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Requested move 31 March 2023

[edit]
WP:SNOW, this was already subject to a move request only six months ago. Talk:The Buddha/Archive 15#Requested move 5 October 2022, which this move req is an attempt to revert. There is no need to relitigate this again so soon. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

The Buddha → Gautama Buddha – I have gone through the previous two RM requests but I fail to understand how we still arrived at this conclusion. Although. Dwayne Johnson is more popularly known as The Rock, we can clearly see how the Wikipedia page is titled. And while I'm not advocating for the name change to Buddha, someone correctly said in a previous RM that there are many moons but the wiki page refers to our Moon. While, a case can be made that Captain America (please note, the lack of The) is a title for many characters but the page references to the character that is primarily known by that name (Steve Rogers), another case can also be made that Ant-Man is a title and many of the characters using that title have their own separate pages. So, what I'm trying to say is while Buddha would make sense, Siddhartha Gautama would make even more sense but The Buddha makes the least amount of sense. Since, Siddhartha Gautama was previously denied during a RM and the title of the article was not changed for over 15 years, I would suggest a RM back to Gautama Buddha. Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it. CaseNotClosedYet (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose - I'm not sure what the rationale for the RM is. The RM proposal does not say why the current title is problematic, nor why the proposed title should be used, nor is any evidence provided to show why the article should be renamed. Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it is cited, yet the RM is an attempt to fix something that isn't broken. As was made clear in the previous RM that changed the title to its current one, English-language sources do not support "Gautama Buddha" as the WP:COMMONNAME for the subject, and this subject is the overwhelming WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this title. Apples-to-oranges comparisons to articles like Dwayne Johnson (who perhaps was as one point more commonly known by The Rock but his career as an actor has overshadowed that) are not a sufficient rationale to try to overturn a recent move simply because the proposer "fail[s] to understand". Consensus can certainly change, but we just had this discussion and it's only been a few months. The nom brings forward no novel argument that would warrant reopening this topic so soon. - Aoidh (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Every other Buddha's in this portal has similar naming structure, so I don't see how this needs further reasoning how or why English-language sources do not support this. Eg- Kassapa Buddha, Sumedha Buddha, etc.
    Also, this is relating to a cultural and religion topic, why you are looking for English-Language sources only, is quite ignorant and probably very offensive to people who are not primarily English speakers, hence why, I have read many people citing other Wikipedia language pages for Gautama Buddha as the preferred naming structure.
    I compared with a wrestler and fictional superhero as that's what this naming structure has brought Siddhartha Gautama down to. You are treating him like fictional character, a superhero or a person trying to go by the stage name for a profession. He is a person yet his article is referring to him by the title that was most associated to him. Let's not forget this article is related to Siddhartha Gautama. Please give example's where title has only been used to refer to a person.
    A few examples for my reasoning.
    1) Mahatma Gandhi - Mahatma is a title not a name yet the title is mostly if not only used for Mohandas Gandhi.
    2) Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother - First of all, Queen Elizabeth is the most popular queen at this age and according to the logic of why The Buddha should be used, perhaps Elizabeth II should have her page renamed to The Queen. Anyway, to avoid confusion with Elizabeth II, Queen Elizabeth is most popularly known as The Queen Mother and her page reflects that. But somehow, here we are trying to create confusion than trying to educate people and remove confusion.
    3) Mansa Musa - Same reasoning as above.
    4) Jesus - No one could say, if Christ is more popularly known or Jesus. And, while Christ is a title that is only used to refer to one person, it is not the name for the page. In fact, the title has a separate page - Christ (title).
    It is quite ignorant and blasphemous to make light of the subject. People need to know about the person in this article not the title. According to me, this naming structure is encouraging a mindset that this is a fictional or mythical person. I could then understand why some people would be against the idea for change to create confusion and spread misinformation or rather the lack of proper information. The core principle of Buddhism is that every person can and probably someday will achieve the state of Buddha, so referring to Siddhartha Gautama as The Buddha is quite against the idea of what Buddhism is about or what he taught. Which from a religion standpoint I presume is very offensive to non-English speakers, some might see this as a win but I consider this as a disrespect to the person behind the title and mystifying title itself. CaseNotClosedYet (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: What Aoidh said. Overall, a somewhat baffling RM. The message seems to be "Siddhartha Gautama" would be best, which is consistent with the Dwayne Johnson material further up, but failing that, since it was already tried last year, a default back to the previous poorly supported page title would suffice ... hang on, what? Setting aside the general comparisons with fictional super heroes and pro-wrestlers, umm, sourcing? "Gautama Buddha" went the way of the dodos because it was a total flunk of a common name. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Kindly refer to the above comment for any confusion you have. Also, Gautama Buddha is quite a common name in non-English speaking communities or people who actually follow Buddhism. It gives respect to both the person and also his status as a Buddha. Hence, the case with Mahatma Gandhi. CaseNotClosedYet (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: per the above, and previous discussions. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move and snowclose. This request is nonsensical. O.N.R. (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and WP:SNOWCLOSE per other editors comments. – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 19:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. It's not inherently wrong or bad, but it makes infinitely more sense to me to have this page at Buddha, following Britannica. — kashmīrī TALK 19:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Vishnu

[edit]

Hello Joshua Jonathan your edit summary is inaccurate.[1] I removed that sentence for the reason I already stated. Hindus are not the only non-Buddhists who uphold Buddha, and he is also rejected by those Hindus who does not consider him as their Vishnu avatar. That's why it is undue for lead. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which other religions then venerate him? Neo-Vedantins consider him to be an awakened one, relevant for Hinduism. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ahmadiyya sect of Islam for starters. Ratnahastin (talk) 05:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use the Sri Lanka Convention Dates

[edit]

Scholars agree the Buddha lived for 80 years. The dates of those 80 years follow one of four chronologies. The Sri Lankan version is 'The Convention' used by serious Buddhist scholars, since it originates from two of the earliest texts: Birth c.624 - Parinirvana c.544 BCE.

Let's use these dates here.

For a basic layperson's discussion on the dates (that unfortunately mis-ascribes intentions) by Joshua Mark, from the"World History Encyclopaedia", 2020: The dates of the Buddha['s life] have been derived from various chronologies which all recognize that Siddhartha Gautama lived for 80 years but disagree on the dates those 80 years encompass. The chronologies are: 1.) Sri Lanka's Long Chronology: c.624 - c.544 BCE (The Convention) 2.) Alternative Long Chronology: c.567 - c.487 BCE 3.) India's Short Chronology: c.448 - c.368 BCE 4.) Contemporary Chronology: c.563 - c.483 BCE</ref> Metokpema (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We use scholarly consensus, not primary sources. Skyerise (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are obviously scholarly secondary sources, inevitably based on primary ones. But whether these dates represent the full spectrum of scholarship, I don't know. Johnbod (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we "use" those dates? We're supposed to give an overview of the relevant scholarly sources, not pick a religious dating. Joshua Mark is not a "serious scholar." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I used Joshua Mark only to explain the current scholarly conventions Skyerise for laypeople, such as are most of the readers and editors here. We are not discussing primary sources in this Talk.
This article uses the UNESCO birth date and another source for the passing date. This is a big problem since all serious scholars agree the Buddha lived for 80 years, and the page's dates don't correspond to the 80 years. Picking these two sources as authoritative b-d dates doesn't work, and most laypeople wouldn't catch the mistake.
Instead of using these unrelated and un-scholary sources, I'm proposing we use one of the listed conventions for accuracy.
The most popular convention among Buddhist scholars Johnbod is the Sri Lankan Long Chronology: c.624 - c.544 BCE (80 years). Thus, it would be the best convention for Wiki to use, generally, and to use as corrected dates for this page at minimum.
I don't understand what is meant by the words "religious dating", so I can't address that Joshua Jonathan. Metokpema (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A dating informed by religious beliefs, or religiously sanctioned sources. What makes you think that "The most popular convention among Buddhist scholars [...] is the Sri Lankan Long Chronology"? And why should we "use" that chronology? We're supposed to give an overview of the relevant scholarly literature, not pick a piece of info according to our likings. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We use dates supported by Reliable secondary sources not the Religious datings. Edasf (talk) 05:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but can you define "religious dating"? I'm talking about academic standards, and that concept doesn't seem to be understood... on an encyclopaedia project. Academic standards are not 'religious'. Is religious dating some kind of dating service? This is complete non-sense. 116.66.195.148 (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Major Correction should be done

[edit]

Hey . I think there's misrepresentation in the subtopic "critique of Brahminism" regarding the Buddha's praise of the "foremost meter" in the Pali Canon, specifically in Samyutta Nikaya 111, Majjhima Nikaya 92, and Vinaya i 246. In these texts, the Buddha actually praises the Sāvitrī (pali: savitti) meter as the foremost meter, not the Gayatri mantra, as the paragraph suggests. The Gayatri mantra, (while fall under Sāvitrī meter in Vedic traditions), is a specific hymn, not whole meter itself and it is necessary to differentiate between the two. The hyperlink in the article that directs readers to the Gayatri mantra page is misleading, as it equates the Sāvitrī meter with the Gayatri mantra itself. This type of way of writing cause confusion among readers, as the Sāvitrī meter is a broader category of Vedic meters praised in the Pali texts, while the Gayatri mantra is a specific hymn recited within that meter. To avoid this confusion, I feel that the text should be corrected to reflect the Buddha's praise of the Sāvitrī meter as the foremost meter as the citation also suggest the same. There is no any mention of Gaytri mantra in that citation.

I also noticed that this same type of misrepresentation is done in Pali Cannon wikipedia page See. This should be corrected . [ Specially when citation also doesn't aligned with what it is written] Callmehelper (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Callmehelper: So fix it. Skyerise (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

India

[edit]

Why does it say Buddha lived in South Asia? It should say he lived in India. Or ancient India. Or on the Indian Sub continent. Please hear my arguments before you delete them.

1 - Buddha was from a Hindu Family.

2 - He was a part of Indian culture.

3 - He spoke an Indian language.

4 - He had an Indian name.

2 - He lived in India.

3 - He first taught in India.

4 - He gained enlightenment in India.

5 - He looked like a person from India

6 - He taught things that are linked to the religions of India.

7 - He believed in things that are linked to the religions of India.

8 - He died in India.

9 - His name is Indian.

10 - You can't ignore all this and not use the word Indian.

11 - If you are going to ignore all this, you can't replace India with "South Asian."

12 - Now sure, he was born in Nepal. That's not India. I get it. But in those days there was no Nepal. It was part of the same Indian region.

13 - And Nepal is basically the same as India. It would be like someone saying California and Mexico are not the same, there for they should not be known as being part of the same ancient time.

12 - Now you might say well in those days there was no India. That's true. But that doens't mean you dont call anything Indian does it? By this logic nothing should be called Indian at all? The word India is just a newer name for the same thing that was there back then. Everything known as India, is linked to Ancient India, or Hindustan, or Bharat, or what ever the name is. So since today it is known as India, you call it ancient India.

13 - Even if you dsiagree, the solution should not be South Asian. That is not the right replacement. For example, if you dont like the name ancient Egypt, the solution is not to say western europe.

14 - And that's another thing, no one goes around using the term north asian, or west asian, or east asian, so why are you using the term south asian?

15 - People who use the term South Asian are using it because they are anti India. That is not a good reason to use the term South Asian.

16 - There are Indian religions. So since there are Indian religions, why are you not using the word Indian? Why are you using South Asian? It can't be both.

17 - Wikipedia has an article about Indian religions. How can Wikipedia have this article and then not use the term Indian?

18 - Wikipedia has Buddhism as an Indian religion. And it says Buddhism is from Ancient India. How can you ignore this and then not use the word Indian? And why is South Asian the replacement?

I gave you no guesses, no assumptions, no opinions, and no beliefs. These are all facts.

I expect no one to answer all my points. I expect no one to change anything. And if someone does adderss all of my points, they will give points that are not factual. And they will erase everything I wrote.

And this is one of the many reasons I stopped editing things on Wikipedia, and I stopped donating to wikipedia. Becuas people don't go by facts. They go by what ever they want. And they are not even consistent with there own points.

76.90.160.66 (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments about Buddha’s life and teachings seems heavily influenced by a modern, Hindu-nationalist view that imposes current boundaries and religious labels onto ancient history. The Buddha lived in a culturally diverse South Asian context, which included various independent regions with distinct languages, practices, and beliefs. He was born in Lumbini (now in Nepal), taught around Magadha, and completely different of his teachings from the vedic traditions of his time. Referring to him solely as “Indian” or calling his family “Hindu” is inaccurate. He wasn't from Hindu family. How you can tell he look like Indian? That's very mean. Hinduism as we know it today hadn’t yet formed when Buddha exist. By insisting on labeling the Buddha within a modern nationalist framework, you're misrepresenting history and disregarding his legacy as a figure whose influence extended beyond any single nation or modern-day religious label. This is why sources like wikipedia refers to use ‘South Asia’ as it accurately represents the cultural and geographic context without imposing a modern, narrow identity. I feel History deserves a neutral perspective, not one shaped by contemporary national or religious biases. Also why would you want to be Buddha be solely an Indian not beyond India? Infact today, mostly major Asian countries have heavily Buddhist tradition and practices.
I also feel you need to read whole this Buddha page about his life and teachings. Thats clears your maximum doubts. Callmehelper (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding people don't go by facts. They go by what ever they want - you're talking about yourself? You have to get your own facts straight: Buddha was from a Hindu Family - no, he wasn't; there was no "Hinduism" at that time yet; see Hindu synthesis. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just visited the link. Dates of 500-200 BCE for the 'Hindu synthesis' means that there was Hinduism at the time of Buddha (624-546, academic Sri Lankan long count). Other academic counts would fall closer into the range.
Nepal isn't south Asia. North India isn't south Asia either. Malaysia or Viet Nam or Cambodia are south Asia. Buddha's documented geographic area ranged from southern Nepal (Lumbini) to northern India (UP and Bihar, the eight main pilgrimage sites). Which sutra says he taught in Viet Nam?
And the "wandering" concept. He spent decades of the rainy seasons (3 months) in Shravasti, northern India, to where he and his sangha travelled on foot. Spontaneity and wandering are two different conce
s and words.t 116.66.195.148 (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article's header is "Hindu synthesis and Classical Hinduism (c. 200 BCE – 1200 CE)"! North India, and for most people Nepal, is in south Asia. Malaysia, Viet Nam & Cambodia are in south-east Asia. Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since when? Nepal is adjacent to Tibet, which is also not southern Asia. Everest isn't in Southern Asia. Additionally, the Indian continent is enormous. Ladakh isn't southern Asia.
What's the sub point of being geographically mysterious with where the Buddha travelled? Southern Nepal and Northern India are more precise, and more correct. 116.66.195.148 (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The dates of the Hindu synthesis are directly from that article. Take a look again. 116.66.195.148 (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did, and at the source Hiltebeitel here, which the article misrepresented. Hiltebeitel gives a very wide range of almost 1,000 years for the date of the "Hindu synthesis", of which the Buddha was probably alive for just the first 40. In true Hindutva style, you deduce "Buddha was from a Hindu Family." Johnbod (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Legends' is pejorative

[edit]

If you're writing about the 'Legend of Sleepy Hollow', then the word 'legend' is applicable.

But, clearly, to classify Sutras as 'legends' is incorrect, an overly used misnomer, and simply pejorative on several levels. I actually think editors are just repeating the word without knowing about Sutras - what they are, what they're about, when they were written, and so on. Sutras are the Buddha's spoken teachings whose compilations began directly after the Buddha's passing and were recited by Ananda, his attendant whose memory was exceptional.

The Mahamaya Sutra (note that it's named for Maya, the Buddha's mother), as one example of 84,000 examples, details the Buddha's birth. Why then does the article refer to the 'legend' which says he was born in Lumbini... The Lalitavistara Sutra details the Buddha's decision to teach after his hesitation, and details where he chose to teach for the first time - in Deer Park, outside of Varanasi. Please, make the correction to the misnomer of 'legend'. 116.66.195.148 (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a large part of the Pali canon in my library, so I'm acquainted with them. Yet, you may be somewhat lacking in knowledge; the Mahayana sutras were composed centuries after the Buddha, so obviously they are not a record of what the Buddha said - nor is the Pali canon, exactly. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the point, nor what I wrote. Compilation and editing continued for centuries. So what. Ananda began the process. Compilation began again in the 8th century when the Tibetan Buddhist Canon was compiled at Samye.
The point is the term 'legend' is pejorative.
Maybe you're lacking in clarity by confusing Catholicism and the Bible with Buddhism and the Sutras. The Bible was compiled centuries after the crucifixion.
And, having the Pali Canon means...what? Are they volumes of 'legends', 'fairy tales' that you keep on your shelves? 116.66.195.148 (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Buddha&oldid=1262737723"