Talk:Gautama Buddha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Scripts[edit]

A user replaced Sanskrit in the brackets of the lead with Devanagari, not sure why that was done as the purpose was to specify not the script. Another user added Brahmi scripts for Pali which is normally written in the Latin script and does not have any specific script. Which is reverted these changes. Gotitbro (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Indic scripts in lead: "Per the Manual of Style page on India-related articles, avoid the use of Indic scripts in the lead sections or infoboxes. Instead, use International Phonetic Alphabet pronunciation guides, which are more international. Exceptions are articles on the script itself, articles on a language that uses the script, and articles on texts originally written in a particular script. This does not apply to articles that are not predominantly within the scope of WikiProject India." (wikipedia:INDIC SCRIPTS) JimRenge (talk) 01:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
@JimRenge: I guess this means, if we follow this rule, that the Devanagari script सिद्धार्थ गौतम in the intro [1], which is being used to transliterate the Sanskrit expression Siddhārtha Gautama, has to be removed as well. Sanskrit was initially written in the Brahmi script, and then in numerous different scripts, so it does not make much sense to use selectively the comparatively modern Devanagari script to express it. Sanskrit is a language, not a particular script, so the International Phonetic Alphabet would be the only proper way to transcribe it, per wikipedia:INDIC SCRIPTS? Can you confirm? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, looking once again into MOS:IS, I see that "This avoidance of Indic scripts only applies to articles that are predominantly India-related and is excluded from, among others, articles about [...] Buddhism [...]." I have no strong opinion about the use of indic script or which indic script should be preferred. JimRenge (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Jim. @Farang Rak Tham, Gotitbro, and Dongar Kathorekar: In this case, I guess it does make sense to mention the name of the Buddha in the Prakrit language in the Brahmi script (𑀩𑀼𑀥 𑀲𑀓𑁆𑀬𑀫𑀼𑀦𑀻 Bu-dha Sa-kya-mu-nī), since this is historically how he was first recorded (in the Edicts of Ashoka, 3rd century BCE). This is the most authentic we can get. It is similar to when we introduce Xerxes I, a contemporary of the Buddha, with his name in Old Persian: 𐎧𐏁𐎹𐎠𐎼𐏁𐎠 Xšayaṛša, the long-extinct script of his time. For Sanskrit, it is generally appropriate to use the IPA pronunciation (Siddhārtha Gautama) since it is a language, and not a particular script. The use of the modern Devanagari script (सिद्धार्थ गौतम) doesn't make much sense, except as a courtesy to the Hindi-speaking world, but since it is the script in most common use in India and one of the two official languages of the Government of India (together with English), I favour keeping it as well... and if we remove it, it will come back anyway. Comments welcome. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
@पाटलिपुत्र: Honestly I don't like to see a myriad scripts in the lead at all. Which is what the INDICCRIPTS policy was trying to achieve in the first place. While I get that you want to show the ancient scripts in which the names were recorded, it makes the lead more cluttered in my opinion especially by adding scripts no one would even understand. It seems better to just add a pronunciation if the name is unfamiliar and add a "name" section if you want to show the old recorded usages (removing all scripts from the lead). Gotitbro (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Devanagari has been removed, I will be monitoring this, as I know there are certain kinds of users on wikipedia with very strong opinions about this kind of thing. Javierfv1212 14:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

We have another editor attempting to re-add Devanagari. I reverted again. User:NativeNames please read the discussion above... Javierfv1212 18:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhism, the Fulfilment of Hinduism[edit]

Should there be an article about this subject? Please give your opinion here.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

It appears 1) the vote accessible by the link on word"here" is over, and 2) concerned another page regarding a swami's 1893 speech at a conference. Db919 (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Ancient History Related with Gautama Buddha[edit]

Source:

[1]From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koliya ,

[2]Marques, Joan (12 March 2015). Business and Buddhism. Routledge. ISBN 9781317663430.https://books.google.co.in/books?id=jNAqBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA55&dq=Koli+Shakya&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Koli%20Shakya&f=false

[3] Nan, Huaijin (1 January 1997). Basic Buddhism: Exploring Buddhism and Zen. Weiser Books. ISBN 9781578630202. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=YAoZ5m9u8OwC&pg=PA37&dq=Koli+Shakya&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Koli%20Shakya&f=false


Gautama Buddha (born in Lumbini) and related facts: He belonged to Koli Clan of Rajputs:

The Sakyan and Koliyan ruled on opposite banks of the Rohni River. Their representatives were called rajas and their chief was the maharaja or Ganapati. However, they both were independent republics. The Koliya owned two chief settlements of Santhagara, at Ramagama and at Devadaha of Nawalparasi Nepal. Present day Lumbini Zone, Kapilvastu, Nepal.

Suddhodana was the father of Siddhartha Gautama, who later became Buddha. Siddhartha Gautama later became known as Shakyamuni, the "Sage of the Shakyans," or the Buddha. Suddhodana's paternal aunt was married to the Koliyan ruler Añjana. Their daughters, Mahamaya and Mahapajapati Gotami, were married to Śuddhodana, the chief of the Sakyans. Yashodhara (Koliyan Princess), daughter of Suppabuddha, who was Añjana's son (Koli), was married to the Sakyan prince, Gautama Buddha. Thus, the two royal families were related by marriage bonds between maternal and paternal cousins since ancient times.


History

Prashanna01 (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Koliya


The Koliyas/Koli were Kshatriya of the Adicca (Iksvaku) clan of the Solar Dynasty from the Indian subcontinent, during the time of Gautama Buddha. The family members of the two royal families, that is the Koliyas and Sakyas married only among themselves. Both clans were very proud of the purity of their royal blood and had practised this tradition of inter-marriage since ancient times. In spite of such close blood-ties, there would be occasional rifts between the two royal families, which sometimes turned into open hostility.

The Koli are an ethnic Indian group in Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Haryana, Karnataka and Jammu and Kashmir states.

These ancient kingdoms of India ruled by Koli Clan (Rajputs) over thousands of years were shown in maps of Nepal after British raj.History of Nepal doesn't show historical records of how & when these different parts of Kapilvastu became part of Nepal without any war/victory/annexation. Because of negligence/ignorance of british indian authorities; that caused transfer of territory.


I just thought you might like to know. I personally feel above facts are important to add to the page. I think the revert of my edit is not justified because it will not improve the article and will not conform with WP:lead. You should think twice in similar situations.

Please prove that historical facts are not true if you want to delete this talk as per wikipedia policies. Sources of information can be found as mentioned above. Deletion of this talk won't change history. Truth will come out again & again in books, literature & historical munuments.

Best regards. Prashanna01 (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2020[edit]

Buddha was born in Nepal. Stop crying dear Indians, history nor repeated neither changed. 27.34.27.89 (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not necessary to address your fellow editors like that. In any case, this is explained in detail in a note – Thjarkur (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Physical Characteristics[edit]

In reference to the following excerpt from the article:

"Among the 32 main characteristics it is mentioned that Buddha has blue eyes.[149]"

The sentence suggests that the referenced source says that Buddha has blue eyes. The source in question is a collection of attributes of a "great man" that is taken to apply to Buddha but not known to be about him (according to this wiki). Additionally, the 32 signs have a mythological flavor, including such things as "forty teeth" and "lion shaped body" as well as non-physical characteristics such as "ten-foot aura around him." As such, the existing version in the article appears to make a stronger statement than it is really possible to make here. It should either be removed, or modified to mention more of the 32 signs rather than single this one out, to give a fuller sense of the orientation of the source, while also weakening the claim that it is known to be about the historical Buddha specifically. The former option (removal) seems preferable. Mindthief (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be removed. it does not appear to be important. JimRenge (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I have found that this text was added by a sockpuppet of a blocked user [2], [3]. I have removed the text per WP:EVASION. JimRenge (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
It may also be sloppy scholarship. In Pāli, the word for dark blue, dark green and black is the same word (nīla).--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
The Buddha was an Arya but probably not an Aryan. JimRenge (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Good point. Regardless, without context, the statement appears irrelevant, and the source is not reliable enough for a high-profile article like this.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Christopher I. Beckwith claims that the Shakyas were Scythians using this as part of his evidence. It's probably only relevant in contexts such as that. Teishin (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Let us continue to remain vigilant, before Buddha goes the way of Jesus and starts looking like this instead of like this. Mindthief (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
It's far too late for that Teishin (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Plans/Ideas for revamping this article[edit]

I've recently made some edits to the "Teachings" section since it was very inadequate. How can the wikipedia article on an important religious founder not cover his basic ideas and teachings?

Basically, I've been following a similar to model to the article on another important religious founder, Jesus. The first part covers the Buddha's teachings as depicted in the earliest texts (the Early Buddhist Texts). Then there is a second section which has all the discussion of the scholarly opinions and disagreements on whether he actually taught any of this and so on.

Regarding the "Biography" section, this needs a lot of work, more importantly it needs some structure. It has tons of pictures but not a lot of sources or substance. I think I want to tackle this going forward as follows: focus on the Buddha's life according to the earliest sources, and then also include the legendary and mythological material. But most importantly, the sources should be named. It shouldn't read like "as a child, the Buddha did so and so", instead it should say "the Lalitavistara depicts the Buddha as doing x y and z".

Input and criticism is welcomed, I can't make this article perfect by myself but I'm working on it. Javierfv1212 14:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

What I have seen you doing now looks good, Javierfv1212. I recommend using John S. Strong's books. He has been most prolific about the Buddha's life in recent years. I think we do need to get this article to GA level, it's been at B-level for way too long, and is way too important.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
The readable prose size of the article is now 65 kb. I don´t think it is too big now but please see Wikipedia:Summary style and WP:SIZERULE. JimRenge (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the John Strong recommendation, that was very useful!Javierfv1212 22:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome, Javierfv1212.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with many of these mass changes. Lead and history sections prior to 30 December should be restored since previous version used better sources and language for readers. All galleries should be removed as they are violating WP:GALLERY. --RaviC (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Restoring previous versions and in the process mass-reverting changes is not the way to go forward here. If you have any specific objections, tag the article or talk it over here, RaviC.
--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

possiblity that the Buddha is mythological?[edit]

It's now believed that Moses was pure myth. (No serious historian doubts that Jesus was a real person.) My understanding is that the tales of the Buddha were first written down five hundred years after his death. I don't mean to get into a debate about the reliability of oral history vs. that of written history, but there's a real possibility that the Buddha, like Moses, was purely mythological.

And unlike Moses, he could be a composite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.55.17.173 (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The Buddha as a mythological figure is a view that has long been held by some scholars, but the consensus among scholars is that the Buddha did historically exist, though few details of his life are historically known for certain. E.g. scholar of Asian religions Bernard Faure writes: "[i]t is fair to say that [the Buddha] was born, he lived, and he died ... [t]he rest remains lost in the mists of myth and legend". For an overview of current scholarship on this, see Wynne, Alexander (2019). "Did the Buddha exist?". Journal of the Centre of Buddhist Studies. 9 (16): 98–148..
It may be useful to add that Buddhists themselves have also replied the question whether the Buddha was a real person. It is mentioned in the Milindapañhā. Here a Buddhist monk replies to a curious Greek king that he knows the Buddha was a real person, because his teachings are really effective, therefore they must come from an enlightened person. For what it's worth, --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 00:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2020[edit]

the end is the part that has false info. Endstone400 (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

​Can you be more specific? – Thjarkur (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2020[edit]

Change The conversion of three brothers named Kassapa followed, who brought with them five hundred converts

to

The conversion of three brothers named Kassapa followed, who brought with them one thousand converts 223.206.250.12 (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
It is true what he/she says. This Thai news article about Māgha Pūjā backs it up, but I've encountered no English source yet. --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC) @Eggishorn:--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

"Çakya-Mouni" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Çakya-Mouni. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 20:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gautama_Buddha&oldid=945235106"