Talk:The Buddha/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

What do you mean by Other archeological findings ????

Its already said and proven that all those findings related on buddha's birthplace within India is completely fake....So whats the meaning of writing "Other archeological findings postulate that Buddha was born at Kapilavastu at Piprahwa, Uttar Pradesh, India or Kapileswara, Odisha,India."....You can't just say so...Gautam Buddha was born in Kapilvastu, Lumbini, Nepal..Thats d truth...so there's no question about "other archeological findings"..google yourself and you find out the truth about this contoversy...so just remove that line..otherwise its definite dat people will raise their voices.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sznga (talk • contribs) 17:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Go through the sources cited. Nothing is written from my prejudices. They are what the sources say. The inscribed pillar which records the visit of Asoka to the place where Buddha was born, exists in modern Nepal as well as modern India. Read the sources. At the end of the day, an elected government makes a claim (see the orissa.gov.in source cited). Wikipedia cannot just ignore all these claims (including Nepal) and cannot go on to declare one as factually correct. Let us not make judgments and present claims as it is. Snowcream (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I just laugh at your ignorance...its already proven that all those buddha's birth related findings in India has been declared fake..better you brush up your wits.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.244.80.100 (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

there have been numerous controversies regarding the birth place of Buddha. But following facts cannot be denied by any of the party: - Buddha was born in Kapilvastu of the Lumbini region which is in Nepal. - He was of Shakya clan whose descendants still today belong to Newars residing in Kathmandu and periphery, hence he was of Mongolian origin. - Original Ashokan pillar as appearing in Indian important documents is situated in Nepal which says Buddha was born in this land. - Nepal had never been under any foreign rule even in ancient times where as India was composed of numerous kingly states. India became as we see today only during and after british rule. - Considering all these facts the birth place in Nepal has been booked as world heritage monuments by UNESCO.

Despite all these facts there has been construction of a replica in India of the birthplace to appear same as it is in Lumbini to mould the truth to show that Buddha was born in India just because Buddha was enlightened there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digendra (talk • contribs) 17:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Snowcream the sources are not authentic sources as UNESCO, and only lumbini has been cited as Buddhas birthplace by UNESCO. You cannot say other archaeological findings and put your own point of view. I have deleted the false claims. If anyone wished to revert it, please talk and explain here before you do so.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 05:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Other claims are from sources including Government of Orissa, Rediff, The Hindu etc. UNESCO is not the final authority here in wikipedia; Wikipedia articulates all significant perspectives. Moreover, it has been explicitly mentioned that Lumbini is the UNESCO world heritage site. Don't just push your version and delete others. Snowcream (talk) 10:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Government of Orissa? Government of india might say Nepal is in India, does that mean wikipedia should mislead others saying nepal is in india? NO. UNESCO is the last authority for any cultural heritage sites. But I know why you are attached to India.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Lord Buddha was born in Kapilavastu, Nepal not in India..

Buddha was born as Siddhartha Gautama in Lumbini, Nepal approximately 2,500 years ago. Buddha, Known as the Lord of Asia, was born in Lumbini, Nepal during the full moon day in the month of Baisakh in 623 BC. He was born under a sal (Shorea robusta) tree when Mayadevi was going to her maternal town on the occasion of delivery Yeah Nepal is the country with the highest mountain Everest. Paali is the language spoken by Buddha. http://www.palitext.com/subpages/lan_lit… His techings , proverbs, Tripitak , quotations are all found in Nepalese language presently.

I give you more information on Lumbini here: its important-- In December 1980, a team of scholars from U.S.A. and Nepal, under the leadership of Dr. J.H. Hutchison, of which other members were Dr. James Munthe, Mrs. Dr. K. Munthe, Dr. R.M. West and Mr. Vishnu Dāńgol, T.U., fossil remains of Ramapithecus were found in a place near Butwal on the bank of the river Tināu attached to the rocks cliff. A piece of the upper left jaw which is 1 cm. in width and more than 1 cm. in length is kept in the Natural Museum in Kathmandu. It was dated approximately eleven million years old on the basis of palaeomagnetic dating method. This hominoid finding is own as the oldest in Asia and the second oldest in the world. Its life style and civilization was similar to the Kenyapithecus and Brahmapithecus of Asia. Having been great forest area the pre-historic men used to live by hunting and gathering wild fruits in the neighborhood of Lumbini. Source(s): http://www.sleuteltotinzicht.nl/hlp011.h… http://www.lumbini.info/sacredhistory.as… http://www.palitext.com/subpages/lan_lit… — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshan Thapa Magar (talk • contribs) 05:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Why "Modern" Nepal??? Why not just Nepal??

Nepal is a country having more than 30000 years unrecorded history. Where as India hasn't got even 100 years of history as we all know before 1947 India doesn't exist in this world. But contrary to this this so called "Article" of Wikipedia about Buddha has got India, India every where from picture by picture to lines by lines. It is so ridiculous that only Indian editors are allowed in this so called "Article". And it's a shame to Wikipedia being favourable to the false. Yes India is a bigger country,stronger and has got more influence in the world than Nepal. But that doesn't give them the authority to twist and turn the fact and create unnecessary dispute. A country where Hindu and Islamic events dominates everything else it doesn't even sound appropriate to dying hard to connect Buddha with India. I request to my fellow Indian friends,if you want to be respected by other, you should respect other too. More importantly you should respect the truth which is Nepal is the homeland of Buddha. It's so ridiculous to claim that a person who born more than 300000 years ago in a country which didn't even exist 100 years ago !! And it's sounds so inappropriate to mention a country which has thousands years of history as now in Nepal..,today in Nepal..etc, just because it's not big enough or hasn't got enough influence. This article should be rewritten and Nepal should be mention without any suffix or prefix as it's a complete word itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddhistwiki (talk • contribs) 02:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

OMG!!!! I laughed so hard i fell out of my chair. Did you escape from some nut house? Get a proper education, 30000 years ago there existed no countries. Rest of your hissy fit exposes your lack of respect towards other people and culture. On the whole to your try emotionally blackmailing people to agree to your 'facts' for which no proof exists. I suggest you stick to 4chan type sites and dont insert your 'facts' onto serious sites like wikipedia.--59.92.252.3 (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm truly impressed that Nepal was a nation roughly 26,800 years before one of the first civilizations, and that Siddhārtha Gautama was born more than 250,000 years before modern humans. Call me a skeptic, but I think your numbers might not be quite right. - SudoGhost 15:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

@SudoGhost: Buddha was born when society was formed under similar ideas as today's society persists to exist. Components of modern civilization like home,marriage,family,rule of law,state governance etc were well existed when he was born. Buddha himself was a prince(son of a king)before he became Buddha. So please don't comment so naively without knowing what your are commenting about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.43.155 (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I know very well what I'm "commenting about". Siddhārtha Gautama was not born over three hundred thousand years ago, there is no naiveté in that. Unless you mean to suggest otherwise, I think you misunderstood my comment. - SudoGhost 12:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

SudoGhost is right. The Buddha is universally recognized as having been born 2,400 to 3,000 years ago, most likely in the more recent part of that range.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

hey guys do you really know what you are saying and what people are saying. it's not about the numbers, you can put more or less number. The birth date of Buddha is believed to be at least some 3 thousands years ago. But this guy said, before modern human ! are you serious man. What do you mean by that, Buddha was born during stone age or something. Man,don't kill people by such jokes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.37.40 (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Neither India nor Nepal existed at the time, so this is a non-issue. The Buddha lived in Kapilavastu. Nepal is the current nation-state that claims that territory, but it wasn't the country Buddha lived in. And it might not have been the Stone Age, but it was the Mahajanapadas-era of Iron Age India, and not the modern world by a long shot. We're still struggling and arguing over what society was like in that time; see the scholarly arguments over the origin of the Shramana Traditions ("indigenous Indus, reformist Vedic, independent Indo-Aryan tradition") alone. Ogress _smash! 15:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Ogress - This whole debate is false. For example, the Wikipedia entry on Michelangelo says he is an "Italian Renaissance painter", even though there was no "Italy" until 1861. I am beginning to see that this sort of identification problem only crops up with India. Even though there was no France until about 900AD, any references to people from before then as to "French". I sometimes wonder if this is part of a delegitimisation campaign against India having "ownership" of its own past by Pakistanis but now Europeans are in on the act too...Also, what do you mean neither India nor Nepal existed? I think it's fair to say modern India is the descendant of "Ancient India", not Pakistan or Bangladesh, as they have clearly chosen the "Islamic" path. -DukeofLancasterVI-DukeOfLancasterVI (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid, sir, that Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Nepal are all descendants of Ancient India. So is part of Afghanistan. And Michelangelo was part of the "Italian Renaissance" just like the above regions were part of "Ancient India". We don't get to pick and choose who gets to have history just because of later changes in faith, either. India is what outsiders called the great mass of nations and peoples in the area delimited by the Indian Subcontinent and surrounding regions.

As for their traditions, modern Hinduism owes most of its traditions to 10th century religious movements unconnected with Rg Vedic-era ritualism, society and culture. Besides which, the heart of Rg Vedic culture was in what is now Punjab, Pakistan and even parts of Afghanistan. And what of eastern regions, Magadha? Do we write off Buddhism and Jainism and the shramanic tradition that competed with Rg Vedicism as the inheritance of pre-Indian religion? You want to deny the border regions that were the heart of the two competing ancient religio-cultural movements.

In short, you can't base history on recent nationalism (and in this case, blatant Hindutva). Ogress _smash! 16:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Ogress, I don't know which country you're talking about, but here, in England, "India" means India and "Pakistan" means Pakistan, etc. I just don't think we should be forced to share the history of Indian religion with a country that has explicitly chosen Islam, a Middle Eastern religion, and moved closer and closer to the Arab countries. Pakistan has explicitly given up more and more of its Indian identity. Ultimately though, I suppose it's a losing battle. Ultimately, the root of the problem is the break-up of the Indian subcontinent. An outsider would normally imagine that these countries would work together, given the shared ancestry and history, sort of like the Anglo world (UK, US, Australia). Unfortunately, for many reasons (Muslims wanting their own countries, the British Empire, tribal allegiances), this region is in complete disunity and therefore can't really stand up to anyone (i.e. CHina). Anyway, I digress. I don't know why you brought up Hindutva. But I suspect your way probably is more logical, even if it makes me angry that India has to give up some of its history's ownership to undeserving countries like Pakistan.--DukeOfLancasterVI (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

False birth information

Clearly, we can see user sudoghost and snowcream vandalising the article with unverified sources of birth claims when the truth is simple and clear from UNESCO. As the countries are identified by UN, so are cultural heritages by UNESCO. You cannot just add information based on state governments claims. If the US says canada is in US , do you put that info on wiki or do you ask UN whats the truth. Administrators should stop making the article a mess and stop sudo and snowcream from putting wrong information when Nepal is in the brink of celebrating Visit Lumbini 2012 for Buddhas celebration sake. Thousans of tourists and people from the world will be misled with sudo's information. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I have sufficiently explained to DBhuwanSurfer why all significant perspectives need to be added in Wikipedia to create a neutral view (as in [1] ). However the user insists that UNESCO is the last authority for any cultural heritage sites (see [2]) and in such indifference to exclude from the article what he/she doesn't desire construes to me as a Conflict of Interest with Wikipedia. I am not willing to waste my time debating with such a user. Snowcream (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTVAND and explain which of those my edit is claimed to have fallen under. Otherwise, please stop asserting that I have vandalized any article. The content you're removing does not contest the fact that UNESCO says what you're saying. It merely adds reliably sourced statements that say "other archeological findings postulate..." But to use your example, if the United States Government claimed that Canada was in the United States, then yes, it would be perfectly acceptable to place "The United States claims that Canada..." in the article. These other sources are saying other sites are speculated, so it is not "wrong information" to state exactly that, that other sources say other sites are possible. That Nepal might not make as much money from tourism because this article reflects reliable sources is not a reason to remove the information. - SudoGhost 17:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Both users put their own point of view as of now. No time to explain as there is no debate. Veteran editors like sudo have been reverting edits putting their own point of views and not allowing any debates for agreements. user like snowcream come from nowhere with no verifiable claims (all of your claims are your own research and own point of view) and then add any stuff they want in a article like Gautam buddha. There cannot be a consensus if there is no debate., and there cannot be debate if people with power misuse it and provide false information to the world misleading it ultimately. When everything was working perfect and some of us even agreed to use the word Indian subcontinent instead of lumbini Nepal, when we did not have to as its completely misleading, users like snowcream and sudo come and put their own point of views with their own research. I am done explaining as clearly the veteran editor has no desire for discussion and agreement and clearly is inclined to put false information about buddhas birth in india.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

According to what I've gathered, you are the problem, DBSSURFER, not Snowcream or SudoGhost. I've been told you have been attacking them, accusing them of vandalism and such. There is no problem with having a discussion about something you disagree with, but please, don't personally attack other editors when discussing. Thanks. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I have not attacked. They are the ones attacking me and others supporting Buddhas birthplace in Nepal. I would have liked you all's comments if this had a facebook like button. You feel proud to mislead the world, dont you?DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Please explain why you've continued to remove the content, because it hurting Nepal's tourism is not a very good reason to remove reliably sourced content. Thank you. - SudoGhost 04:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's why. As user skar explained Majority of the scholars' view is that he was born in Lumbini, modern day Nepal; no need to include minority views in the Introduction, it can be written below in other sections. You snowcream and all agree about lumbini, so there is consensus. However, many dont agree about india as you can see from long lists of several discussion topics. So it is not in consensus. And nonagreeable details should not be added.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That the birthplace is Lumbini is not an indisputable fact, but is the generally agreed upon location which is reflected in the article. However, prominent reliable sources also suggest other locations, which is also reflected in the article. However, if you could please provide a link for these "long lists of several discussion topics" specifically discussing this, I'd be grateful, and it would help support your position. The only discussions I saw were not relevant to this discussion, instead discussing the wording of where Lumbini is and where it was in the time of Siddhartha Gautama. - SudoGhost 15:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Almost all of the discussions above have talked about the topics we are discussing. Do not pretend that you cannot see it! And all of them have consensus for lumbini, none of them have consensus of anything about india.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I can see where you could be confused. The above discussions were about Lumbini being in Nepal vs. Lumbini being in (what was then considered) India. This is not the same as discussing reliable sources about other sites, completely unrelated to Lumbini. Thus, there is no consensus to remove reliably sourced information. - SudoGhost 20:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not try to confuse everyone by going away from the issue. I present a factual source : http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=1,1686,0,0,1,0 . The researcher from india has nullified the orissa source of birth claim. Now we have sources that do not agree with each other about orissa as the birth place. Such disputed information should not be highlighted in the opening paragraph of a religious leader. As such I am deleting some of the disputed claims. And here is a worldwide view of Lumbini as the birthplace: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/666.

If you wish to contest this, give a good reason now why a disputed information should be put in the front of an article as I have presented you with sources that nullify orissa or any other indian birth claims.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop deleting sourced information, as it is akin to vandalism at this point. Just because one source contradicts another, is not a valid reason for deleting one. Now regardless of this nonsense, a good point has been raised: the introduction is way too long, and there is no reason to include the geography of his birth in this section. Introductions should be short and succinct – the type of very basic and very general material that does not stir up the sentiments of crude nationalism. Tengu800 14:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop adding disputed information then. Not putting geography of birth of a historical figure? That cannot be done sorry. Can you give me a single source where government of india has claimed anywhere else than lumbini as buddhas birthplace? If so then present it and I shall withdraw my edits. Just because there is a single paper published by an unknown writer of orissa does not mean we refuse the government of nepal, government of india and the worldwide view of lumbini as buddhas birthplace.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Why would the government of the Republic of India need to claim something in order for a reliable source to be valid? Governments are not archaeologists, and are not the final word on archaeological findings. - SudoGhost 18:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

DBSSURFER, material does not need to be undisputed in order to be added to Wikipedia. Tengu800 20:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Disputed statement, a false information has to be corrected right away.http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=1,1686,0,0,1,0 The researcher from orissa has nullifed any claims of orissa being the birthplaceDBSSURFER (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This applies to unsourced information, not reliably sourced information. The link you provided does not "nullify" the reliable source in the article, but shows that a single person disagrees that this is a possible birthplace, which does not contradict anything written in the article. - SudoGhost 21:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Sakyamuni

"Sakyamuni" is a redirect to Gautama Buddha. But what is Sakyamuni? I could not find it in the article. This seems to be a larger problem: a redirect which is not assessed in the article. 85.217.20.33 (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This only a problem as far as searching in the page is concerned, because of special characters. The second paragraph of the lede explains the name Śākyamuni, but search for "Sakyamuni" will not pull that up. Searching for "Shakyamuni" misses this first reference as well, although the article does reference that name later on (which is another problem, because it means we are using two different spellings of the same name). I'm not sure what the solution is.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the italics to bold for this name. Tengu800 00:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Could not have figured that out. And did not want read the whole article now. In fact I was only searching for Pagoda of Fogong Temple in China, also known as "Sakyamuni Pagoda". Odd thing that "Sakyamuni Pagoda" itself redirects to "Seokgatap" which is in South Korea. 85.217.20.33 (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"Sakya" is the Cast name of the Siddartha and Word "Muni" mean Spiritual Leader. It's correct to use Sakyamuni as another name for Gautama Buddha, In Sri Lanka we more commonly use that word as a synonym to Gautama Buddha, but it's incorret to use as Sidartha Gautama. Gautama always use before name Buddha as there are many other Buddha(Tanhankara,Medhankara, Deepankara,...) according to Tripiṭaka. D dasun (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Enlightenment Story

Going back to the story of Siddhartha's Enlightenment, I think there are a few things missing. For example, the story could go more into detail about his confrontations with the demon Mara. One of the most well known scholars on comparative religion Huston Smith discusses the temptation of Siddhartha in its different stages: Siddhartha is first tempted with wealth but denies it as futile, then tempted by Mara's seductive daughters for sexual pleasure yet they turn into old women and wither away, reinforcing Siddhartha's belief of the impermanence of the material world, then Mara tries to scare him by unleashing a demonic army that shoots flaming arrows at Siddhartha, yet they all turn into flower petals at contact, proving the point of pain being mind over matter and responsible for the subject, able to be manipulated by pure will. Mara then places a copy image or replica of Siddhartha right in front of him trying to question his ego, saying that the prince is too arrogant thinking he is so special as to find Enlightenment. Siddhartha retaliates saying that Enlightenment is not his own and he did not come up with any of the ideas yet they are universal truths he is just exploring. Mara becomes furious at this loss and leaves; Siddhartha then reaches enlightenment underneath the Bodhi Tree. This story is incredibly interesting and I feel like it should be included, what do you guys think? MsTania66 (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it is worth adding and I encourage you to do that. You might want to condense what you have said slightly. Also, it will need a citation from a reliable source. Huston Smith is a good one. If you need any help, please contact me on my talk page. Sunray (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Buddha didn't actually start Buddhism

The first line reads "Siddhārtha Gautama was a spiritual teacher from ancient India who founded Buddhism."

This is somewhat incorrect. Buddha did not want to start any 'isms' nor did he want himself to be made a deity. A more accurate description would be...

"Siddhārtha Gautama was a spiritual teacher from ancient India on whose teachings Buddhism was founded."

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.62.93.179 (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

No bad actually! (apart double posing missing signature ;0) ) - I agree. What do the other think?--Dia^ (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

[Double posting removed]. I agree with this proposed change in wording and will boldly make the change. Sunray (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You fools...say.."Siddhartha Gautama was a spiritual teacher from Nepal. He was born in Nepal " n u so called wikis ur line "...Other archeological findings postulate that Buddha was born at Kapilavastu at Piprahwa, Uttar Pradesh, India or Kapileswara, Odisha,India." is now surely gonna rage n concerns....u don't have any idea wat a blunder you r doing....He was born in Kapilvastu, Lumbini, Nepal....dats it...its prove...now correct yourself... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sznga (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC) none of these links open. Please provide some other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.23.228.60 (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Gautama Buddha was born in Kapilvastu, Lumbini, Nepal

The article about Gautama Buddha in Wikipedia should be corrected in terms of His birthplace. There are archaeological evidences in Kapilvastu, Lumbini, Nepal that prove that Gautama Buddha was born there and not in Orissa, India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.90.134 (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 January 2012

Romove: Having been recognised by the men of King Bimbisara, Bimbisara offered him the throne after hearing of Siddhartha's quest. Replace: After King Bimbisara's men recognised Siddhartha and he learned of his quest, the king offered Siddhartha the throne. (This is a very difficult sentence to fix and I would recommend a total rewriting of it instead of an attempt at editing it as written. The original sentence, however, states that Bimbisara's men recognised Bimbisara, which is not the case.) Aquak (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Tradition in China and Japan

Someone has removed what I added. Tradition in China and Japan is that Shakyamuni was born on the 8th of April 1029 BCE, and passed away on the 15th of February 949 BCE. This belief is also held in some schools which believe in the Three periods of the Dharma, and is also what great scholars of the past believed, including Tiantai and Nichiren. I cited Soka Gakkai Dictionary of Buddhism as a reference for this. Surely it belongs on Wikipedia as it is a belief in many schools? Why would someone keep removing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Milburn (talk • contribs) 21:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I just removed it again, because I found nothing in the reference you gave that verifies these specific dates. The only thing I see in The Soka Gakkai Dictionary of Buddhism under Shakyamuni is that "he was born on the eighth day of the fourth month", but it doesn't say what calendar. Given that it is in China and Japan, I don't think that makes it the Gregorian calendar. - SudoGhost 22:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I have added it again, with the citation improved. The dates have been converted into our own calendar. This tradition is important in many schools, including Nichiren Buddhism, and the dates are honoured by many Buddhists. I see no reason for it to be removed again, other than sectarian bias. If you are still not happy with it, please post here first [before removing it] so I can find more citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Milburn (talk • contribs) 22:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but your claim above is not verified by the reliable source you added, and the subsequent source you added is not a reliable source. Please do not state that anyone that removes it must have a "bias", as the only bias I have in this instance is towards material that is not reliably sourced. Making presumptuous and ignorant comments like that is not likely to help you achieve what you're looking for. You're more than welcome to find these reliable sources, and discuss them, before reinserting the material. I have no issue with the article stating that some schools hold that his birth was on date XYZ, but like all material, it needs to be reliably sourced. - SudoGhost 01:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way, as a response to this, the The Soka Gakkai Dictionary of Buddhism does not match what you're saying. It states "the eighth day of the fourth month", not April 8. The key thing here is that it is not the the eighth day of the fourth month of the Gregorian calendar, but the Chinese Lunar calendar.

• These dates are according to a lunar calendar, so the festival called "Eighth Day of the Fourth Month" is not on April 8, but on the eighth day of the fourth lunar month (usually sometime in May).[3]
• ...Celebrated in China, Korea and Japan on the eighth day of the fourth lunar month...[4]

This is why I removed the April 8th reference, and asked for a WP:RS. Because the sources I found do not support a Gregorian calendar date of April 8th, and the The Soka Gakkai Dictionary of Buddhism reference you provided does not either. I assure you, I did not remove it because of some "bias" or some grand evil scheme. I have no issue with information being in the article, if it can be verified, but it hasn't been verified by a reliable source. - SudoGhost 16:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. According to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha%27s_birthday#Japan_2 :

"As a result of the Meiji Restoration, Japan adopted the Gregorian calendar rather than the Chinese lunar calendar in 1873. The 4th month in the Chinese lunar calendar is translated into April or May. Therefore Buddha's birth is celebrated on April 8 or May 8 in many Japanese temples, and rarely on the orthodox Chinese calendar date."

So yes, I had worded it wrong, and the citation didn't match what I added. But I think this info would be goon in the article, when it's worded and referenced correctly. Steve Milburn (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Source to Andre Bareau

Ref 50 is referenced to:

'Bareau, André, Les récits canoniques des funérailles du Buddha et leurs anomalies : nouvel essai d'interprétation, BEFEO, t. LXII, Paris, 1975, pp.151-189'.

Has this source been verified? I did a quick search on Google, and found a link to this book (http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Les_r%C3%A9cits_canoniques_des_fun%C3%A9railles.html?id=nzDcYgEACAAJ&redir_esc=y):

Les récits canoniques des funérailles du Buddha et leurs anomalies: nouvel essai d'interprétation [by Andre Bareau], according to Google though, that book only has 39 pages, and the book that has referenced is 'pp.151-189'.

Can someone please confirm if this is a reliable citation/reference. Steve Milburn (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

BCE - wrong imo.

I appreciate the attempt to be PC by using BCE/CE as opposed to BC/AD, but how can you refer to Buddha in an article as being born before the Common Era as opposed to being born Before Christ? When I was in Nepal the first time, travelling from India, I was (pleasantly) surprised to see the newspapers giving the date as c.2,500+. They date the start at Buddha's birth. And Muslims do from Mohammed. And as there are more Buddhists and Muslims than Christians, it is insulting and offensive to use Common Era, imo.

You could say he was born year zero in the Buddhist Calender (563 Before Christ and 1185 - or whatever - Before Mohammed), or you could just use BC (while explaining that Buddhists start the calender year at his birth).

Before Christ is correct. Before Common Era, when for most people it is not the common era, is not.

I'm not a Christian, btw. It's just when I was living in France, I thought how lucky we were to have BC/AD, not Av.-J.C./Apr.-J.C.

BC/BCE can be a real problem for years close to 0 BC/AD. We all know that Buddha was born c. 500 years before JC, but I just checked (I'm no good on Roman history) and Augustus Caesar died in 14AD (according to wiki). I'll remember that. Had it said CE, I bet within 6 months I'd have forgotten whether it was CE or BCE.

The letters are too close.

If the PC brigade (wrongly, I feel) believe that AD is insulting to non-Christians, fine. But Common Era is just as bad.

If I had to choose the change, I'd have BC and After Jesus. Then we could have, I dunno, Before Gautum, After Buddha or before Mohammed and After Prophet. Though maybe you'd want the initial of the Romanised words for before and after in Sanskrit and Arabic - assuming they all have different letters. But that's getting silly and confusing. But if you want to be right-on why not use AD/BC (after all, you think it's the Common term) and add the dates in the other calenders in brackets.

Sorry, but I never remember BCE/CE years around year 1 AD or BC, just like I could never remember the French dates - was it av or apr? It's putting ideology in the way of function. And the only people offended by AD in my experience are PC whites from Western countries (all of which have a Christian heritage). btw the Mohammed page give the AD date then the year 11 AH. Can we have a Common terminology for wiki please. At least for each language.

Just a thought. If there's a good reason for the differences, I'm perfectly happy to stand corrected as I'm very new to all this. Many thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganpati23 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Arguing about dating conventions is often seen as fairly lame on WP. We have a rule that we simply use the first dating convention found in the article forever, unless there's a really good reason to switch. FYI: Since BC/AD is explicitly Christian, its secular counterpart BCE/ACE is most often used in academia, and would tend to be most appropriate for non-Christian subjects such as this. They refer to the same thing, so if you can understand what it means, then it doesn't matter which we use; arguing about it really isn't productive, so I'd suggest just moving on rather than battling it out.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

If someone can put into the very first paragraph, that Gautama was a reformer of the extreme ascetiscism of the Shramana religion, I would really appreaciate it. CO2Northeast (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If we have sources for it, that may be a good addition. I don't think changing the first sentence to make that the defining characteristic of Gautama Buddha is the best idea. If it's in the article already, then incorporating it into the lead somewhere else may be useful, proportionate to its weight in the sources. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Order of Teaching according to Mahayana Tradition

The Chinese Scholar T'ien-T'ai (538-597 CE) taught that Shakyamuni taught over Five Periods. Which were:

1) The Flower Garland Period (taught immediately after Shakyamuni attained Buddhahood). 2) The Agama Period (taught at Deer Park). 3) The Correct and Equal Period. 4) The Wisdom Period. 5) The Lotus and Nirvana Period.

Ref: SGI Dictionary of Buddhism, entry: Five Periods. http://www.sgilibrary.org/search_dict.php

Any thoughts on adding this to the article somewhere?

Steve (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 February 2012

Change the section about where he was born to "modern day Nepal" instead of "today in Nepal" Thank you Jonathanator1 (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Partly done: -- While it is admittedly badly worded, I don't think you understand what the infobox is trying to say. It's saying the area today is known as Nepal, so the box is correct to say "today in Nepal" (ie Lumbini is in the area known as Nepal today). However I will try and make it more understandable. Thanks. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 20:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 February 2012

Please change "Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha (Sanskrit: सिद्धार्थ गौतम बुद्ध; Pali: Siddhattha Gotama) was a spiritual teacher from the Indian subcontinent, on whose teachings Buddhism was founded." to "The Founder of Buddhism was the historical Gautama Buddha (Sanskrit: सिद्धार्थ गौतम बुद्ध; Pali: Gotama) born as Prince Siddhartha of the Himalayan Sakya Kingdom. The natives of ancient Nepal were the Kirat people (Tamang, Sherpa, Rai, Gurung, Newar etc.), better known as the Gurkhas today.1http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/412809/Newar" Nepal Kirat (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The lede appears to be in the normal style and contains information developed later in the article. The other information does not belong here. Sorry, Celestra (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The current information provided on this page presents a distorted picture of the historical Buddha as of Indian origin, when current UNESCO and other American anthropological experts have already arrived at a consensus, that the historical Buddha was of Himalayan (Tibeto-Burman) lineage. Rejecting proper evidence-based references, in favour of out-dated, speculative literature references on the historical Buddha, contradicts both the American as well as Wikipedia's 'DNA', which is to educate and clarify, based on gold-standard / bona fide sources of information, as much as possible. Even if folk tales, legends and myths are to be included, these should not preclude proper, accepted, scientific research outcomes by anthropologists and archaeologists. Don't you think? With regards, (Nepal Kirat (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC))

Edit request on 16 February 2012

Please change "The time of Gautama's birth and death are uncertain: most early 20th-century historians dated his lifetime as c. 563 BCE to 483 BCE,[3] but more recent opinion dates his death to between 486 and 483 BCE or, according to some, between 411 and 400 BCE.[4][5] UNESCO lists Lumbini, Nepal, as a world heritage site and birthplace of Gautama Buddha.[6][7] There are also claims about birth place of Gautama Buddha to be Kapilavastu at Piprahwa, Uttar Pradesh, or Kapileswara, Orissa, modern India.[8][9][10][11][12] He later taught throughout regions of eastern India such as Magadha and Kośala.[13][14]" to "The birth year and location of the historical Buddha is stated as 623 BC (at Lumbini, Nepal), in the UNESCO monograph. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/666" Nepal Kirat (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The UNESCO source is already included in the current paragraph, which appears to be a neutral handling of the fact that many opinions exist about this. The source is not clear about about the date, later stating in the text May 642BC, which is included in the ranges in the current text. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Celestra: The out-dated, speculative references about ......Buddha was born at Kapilavastu at Piprahwa, Uttar Pradesh, modern India..... Orissa, modern India.[7][8][9][10][11] should be removed. I believe Wikipedia's original vision is to educate and clarify, and not to confuse or mislead readers seeking facts. New scientific data, validated by UNESCO experts in this field, have proven the abovementioned statements as incorrect and speculative. It is therefore reasonable to remove this specific tract already proven obsolete / unreliable. With regards, (Nepal Kirat (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC))

Do you have reliable sources specifically showing that these sources are obsolete and/or unreliable? A conflicting account does not satisfy this assertion. - SudoGhost 06:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned in my current edit request, the latest consensus amongst scholars in this field with respect to the historical Buddha's origin is best exemplified by the official UNESCO position, as published in their online website on this matter. As an analogy, if the latest definition for type 2 diabetes mellitus is already published in the WHO and ADA clinical practice guidelines, would a modern guide on type 2 diabetes include obsolete definitions of this condition, to confuse readers? In the same vein, we need to rely on appropriate gold standard international bodies when it comes to educating the public. With regards, (Nepal Kirat (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC))

See below. - SudoGhost 06:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. We do not try to determine truth here - we try to write from a neutral point of view and provide the reader a blend of different viewpoints, weighted by their prominence. The viewpoint presented by UNESCO is already included in the current neutral text. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 February 2012

Please amend "Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha (Sanskrit: सिद्धार्थ गौतम बुद्ध; Pali: Siddhattha Gotama) was a spiritual teacher from the Indian subcontinent, on whose teachings Buddhism was founded." to "Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha (Sanskrit: सिद्धार्थ गौतम बुद्ध; Pali: Siddhattha Gotama) was a spiritual teacher from the Himalayas, on whose teachings Buddhism was founded."

The reasons are: The current term 'Indian subcontinent' is both misleading and out-dated. Latest published anthropological and archaeological evidences, validated by UNESCO international experts in this field, now clearly state that the historical Buddha is of indigenous Himalayan (Nepalese) origin. (Nepal Kirat (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC))

Nepal Kirat (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

While the UNESCO version is the generally given account, it is not a definitive agreed upon matter. Indian subcontinent is factual no matter which account is correct. The edit request alludes to "latest published evidences" without actually providing them. As the Indian subcontinent wording was arrived at by consensus, I think a new consensus should be established before changing it. - SudoGhost 06:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

As explained in my current edit request, one of the underlying premise is that the current term 'Indian subcontinent' is misleading vis-a-vis the more definitive / specific use of 'Himalayas'. The geographical word 'Himalayas' is neutral, as India has Sikkim, which is part of the Himalayas. Furthermore, 'Himalayas' will accurately reflect latest scientific results showing the historical Buddha's Tibeto-Burman ethnic origins. With regards, (Nepal Kirat (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC))

What scientific results? You need to provide them, instead of alluding to them. Also, Himalayas does not appear to be in line with what the spectrum of conflicting sources show. - SudoGhost 06:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply to SudoGhost: The word 'Himalayas' is an accepted noun for the geographical area, now validated by UNESCO, as the birthplace of the historical Buddha. UN experts do not lightly state their position, unless the scientific findings are solid. With regards, (Nepal Kirat (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC))

Please read what was written directly above your comment, because every bit of what I wrote still very much applies to your most recent comment as well. - SudoGhost 07:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Please read the policy about WP:NPOV. We cannot replace a neutral handling of a variety of significant viewpoints with a single viewpoint, regardless of the source. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Celestra: With respect to 'neutrality', this should not serve as an excuse to perpetuate misleading, incredible and/or out-dated information. The UNESCO reference is a case study of this. I am disappointed that Wikipedia, insofar as the write-up on the historical Buddha is concerned, is clearly being hijacked by a small group with vested interests, pushing 'neutral point-of-view' as a cloak to pursue their own agenda. No offence intended, just a frank assessment of the current situation. Thanks and regards, (Nepal Kirat (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC))

Please argue the merits of your requested edits rather than casting aspersions on the characters of other editors. This is not acceptable behavior.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No offense, I meant :) As mentioned earlier, the UNESCO has made clear their scientific position about the historical Buddha being born in 623 BC, in the Himalayas (Lumbini, Nepal). The merits of the requested edits are clear - the UNESCO scientific panel reviews a range of data that include findings from internationally peer-reviewed, published, archaeological (field) work. Please do not put labels on my comments, unless the facts I have put forward here are properly countered by references that are equally robust, if not better. Thanks and regards, (Nepal Kirat (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC))

Edit request on 17 March 2012

Please make the word "koliyan" as a click-able link to either "Koli" or "Mahaur" target page in Wikipedia itself.

Cme2vicky (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Done I added a link to Koli people. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

I strongly suggest if have chance, someone should write about this section "Historical views, Existence" for this person just like in Jesus article.65.128.165.20 (talk) 04:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Gautama no "Gautam" in the third line from the top, ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.156.77.64 (talk) 04:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 April 2012

he was born in nepal and historians have proved it thrrough various context not in india thank you

82.31.234.223 (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done - The current wording of the lede was established through consensus, a new consensus should be established before changing it. - SudoGhost 02:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Erroneous information to world

This article is full of erroneous information that misleads the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandheep Bodhi (talk • contribs) 08:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Such as? - SudoGhost 09:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Could someone add a link?

Hi, this is (http://vanipedia.org/wiki/Buddha) a real nice article about Lord Buddha. It could be called Lord Buddha according to Sri Srimad A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, or Lord Buddha according to Srimad Bhagavatam (Bhagavata Purana)?

http://vanipedia.org/wiki/Buddha

It can simply be placed under:External Links

Thank you,

Sincerely,

Madhu Gopal das — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhu Gopal (talk • contribs) 16:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

An open wiki such as that doesn't typically belong as an external link, per WP:ELNO #12. - SudoGhost 17:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Birth of Siddharth Gautam.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Birth of Siddharth Gautam.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Birth of Siddharth Gautam.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

About the references cited about the birthplace in the wikipedia article on Gautam Buddha

My thoughts exactly. In fact, I have also placed a similar request vis-a-vis Lumbini, Nepal; based on the UNESCO reference.

Buddha was born at Kapilavastu, Lumbini Zone of Nepal.

Highly relevant data touching on the indigenous Nepalese Newar ethnic group, still in existence today, have also been omitted. I recommend an evidence-based section on the Newaris, since the surviving Shakya (Sakya) clan largely belongs to this native Himalayan group in modern times.

Last but not least, the section on Buddha's Teachings require proper editing, if the Wikipedia page on Buddha wants to be ranked high, as a credible source of online information in this regard. In the global IT age, out-dated, inadequate, incorrect or even false information can easily be spotted. As such, my recommendation to Wikipedia editorial committtee would be - uphold the gold standard, when it comes to write-ups and references. Otherwise, over time, Wikipedia will develop a reputation for providing biased or unreliable information. Obviously, this will degrade its value, in both intellectual and commercial context. (Nepal Kirat (talk) 05:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)) Thoughts about Wikipedia editors' references on Gautam Buddha's birthplace

Wiki society should not promote contoversies and doubts regarding established facts. UN and many nations (excluding India) regard Lumbini, Nepal as birthplace of Lord Budhha after Dr Fuhrer's discovery of Ashoka pillar. It may still be wrong, but until concrete evidence is found on the contrary, this established fact should be honored; as is the practice in scientific evidences and hypotheses. 13:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)khanalsar

Here are my reflections after reading both the wikipedia articles on Gautam Buddha and Talk:Gautam Buddha ". First and foremost, it would be injustice to the whole humanity and to the generations to come to try to settle the birthplace of Gautam Buddha by propoganda rather than scientific research and archaeological findings. Lets be honest and focus on evidence and facts known so far and rhe first requirement for an honest scientific appraisal is the ability to put aside the conflict of interest and regional biases.Unfortunately that does not appear to be case among many editors here in this article in my observation. Please mention the references from aracheological journal or Research journal . References from ' informational web pages trying to promote tourism of a region' or from non-research article/news published in the lay press certainly do not merit citation. Let the process make us all more enlightened rather than feel manipulated and propogandized.

I was also looking at the discussion and disput about how to refer to the place with adjective of Modern/Ancient etc. The simple answer to that is look at what a standard contemporary archaelogy and history journal or experts would do. I have seen professional articles mention what was the place/region/country called at the historic time and what it is called now/where is it when when they refer about a place. The political boundries are man made and they kept on changing at different times in the past for differnet reason and now I see them being less irrevelant each new year due to globalization. Lets be focused on making sure our collective effort results in authentic information. Having said this, here is what I found looking at the references cited for place of birth in the article.

Based on some archeological findings and inscriptions, Buddha was born in Lumbini, modern Nepal[5][6] which is a UNESCO world heritage site.[5]

-Reference [5] comes from UNESCO website which lists the world heritage site. This is a highly credible UN institution so far as I know. I could not find any online link for the research work published on the birth place of Gautam Buddha from here. Does any body know of any free links?

- Reference [6] is from the victoria and Albert museum webpage. This is Victora and Albert museum webpage mentions the birthplace Gautam Buddha as Lumbini, Nepal. I presume, they are fairly credible but again this is museum webpage and not a research journal.

Other archeological findings postulate that Buddha was born at Kapilavastu at Piprahwa, Uttar Pradesh, modern India or Kapileswara, Orissa, modern India.[7][8][9][10][11]

-Reference [7] is the different page of the same website mentioned in Reference [6[ underheading of Buddist Piligrimmage site in India.It just mentions Gautam Buddha lived in Lumbini for first 29 years of Life.IT DOES NOT MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT BIRTH PLACE

-Reference [8] is a newspaper article mentioning about claims made in the past cited by state minister of Orrisa in a meeting. This is a article in lay press and not a research article.

-Reference [9] This is also a news article and NOT a research article. This article cites opinions of Superident of a Orrisa Museum who claims the birthplace  ; official position of government of India as 'Lumbini, Nepal to be the birth place of Buddha; Opinion of official Lumibini Development Trust of Nepal; a Indian expert on Buddhist archaeology ; and a noted Indian historian with his Ph D thesis on Emperor Ashoka. Overall the article highlighted the opion made by the superidendent of the museum and that the experts were skeptical as they thought the evidence found so far pointed towards Lumbini,Nepal.

-Reference [10] This article is published in a Srilankan Newspaper. NOT a research article. Mentions of the views of Orrisa Museum superitendent mentioned in the Reference [9]in a promotional way.

-Reference [11] This is an article published in Orissa Historical Research Journal. The author Ajit Kumar Tripathi is a Development Commissioner-cum-Addl. Chief Secretary, Government of Orissa. The article deleberates the case for Orrisa and againt Nepal.I enjoyed reading this article but this is more of an opinion article and Not a Research article.I think the author attempts his best to make a case for Orrisa but most of the points he makes is based on unconfirmed history rather than archeological datas . However, the greatest short-coming of this article is the lack of citation of reference to the points it makes except for the mention of names of some archeologist/historians in the text.

Here are my requests:

1. The scientic data/ archaeological finding on Lumbini,Nepal are the most recognized and authorative compared to the other places looking at the references but the implied meaning /wording of the sentence downplays the significance.This sentence also does not convey the official UNESCO position on Lumini,Nepal as birth place of Buddha and which is the reason why it is a world heritage site. My suggestion is to change it using simple sentence for the sake of clarity without modifying or confusing the UNESCO's views. So please change: Based on some archeological findings and inscriptions, Buddha was born in Lumbini, modern Nepal[5][6] which is a UNESCO world heritage site.[5] on first paragraph TO UNESCO lists Lumbini,Nepal as a world heritage site and birthplace of Gautam Buddha [5]

2. The referece cited are not apropriate to make such assertion. It would be over-extending or misconstruing the message in those references which are news or opinion in lay press except Reference [11] which is a opinion on a historical research journal. Please change : Other archeological findings postulate that Buddha was born at Kapilavastu at Piprahwa, Uttar Pradesh, modern India or Kapileswara, Orissa, modern India.[7][8][9][10][11] on first paragraph TO There are also claims about birth place of Gautam Buddha to be Kapilavastu at Piprahwa, Uttar Pradesh, modern India or Kapileswara, Orissa, modern India.[7][8][9][10][11]

Agreed! And whoever wrote these details, the UNESCO reference provided has scholar journal research as well. Editors should understand that any Indian claim about Buddha is fake based on the following reasons above. Seaboy123 (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Based on the reasons above, administrator is requested to remove false claims of Buddha's birth in India from the 1st paragraph and the conception paragraph. Seaboy123 (talk) 02:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well if removing the info is not still in consensus, changing to what our user above has described certainly serve both interests, and I shall do so. If any one has something to say, please do so here. I would have removed the Orissa claims based on "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" as the references provided are way off from the mainstream view and are Wikipedia:Fringe theories, but doing so may provoke reverts in edits by others so I will not remove anything Seaboy123 (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 May 2012

Under "Other Religions"

Please change "He is also regarded as a god or prophet in other world religions or denominations like the Ahmadiyya Islamic religious movement[57] and the Bahá'í Faith."

to "He is also regarded as a god or prophet by other world religions or denominations such as the Ahmadiyya Islamic religious movement[57] and the Baha'i Faith.

because this wording is unclear. Someone unfamiliar with the Ahmadiyya Islamic religious movement or the Baha'i Faith could misunderstand this to imply that the Ahmadiyya Islamic religious movement and the Baha'i Faith are both denominations of the same religion [which is not the case, [Bahai|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahai]].

Khashiar (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That seems easy enough to clear up, all that's discussed much more clearly in the very next paragraph anyway. Why the semi-protect request though? Peter Deer (talk)

EDIT: Damn it, Peter, when will you learn to read carefully? Peter Deer (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 June 2012

Buddha was born in Kapilvastu of Lumbini Zone of Nepal. It was Nepal since the very beginning, It was never the part of India

49.244.135.246 (talk) 04:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Andie ▶Candy◀ 14:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

it is part of the indian subcontinent. what's your point/agenda? also, which buddha? PadmaPhala (talk) 07:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 July 2012

125.24.249.41 (talk) 01:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: Considerable attention is already paid in the article to the uncertainty of the birth and death dates. If you think the Singleton source is especially noteworthy, please explain why, then indicate the exact change you'd like to see in the article. Rivertorch (talk) 05:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

(Edit request was coded as hidden text as follows: Buddha ( BC 623-BC 543)<ref>http://www.unz.org/Pub/SingletonEsther-1908v01-00124</ref>) Rivertorch (talk) 05:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 July 2012

{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}

Dear Mr. Editor,

How are you? Please forgive me that I disturb you about correct birth year and death year of Lord Buddha. This is very important for every Buddhist people in the

world. Please add my following suggestion.

Thanks again!

Remark: You can confirm to Burmese Democracy Leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, her books and Sitagu Sayadaw [[5]] [[6]] about Buddha's birth years and death years, please.

Very truly yours,

Myint

Email: historyofbuddhism@gmail.com

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.. You'll need to get agreement from other editors on what the dates are before the article can be changed. RudolfRed (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Enlightenment

I know that commonly it is knowm that Buddha attained enlightenment under a bodi tree, but in "Lotus Sutra" Buddha proclaimed that he gained enlightenment many lifetimes ago. This could be good addition to this heading, will look for more links. Since I attained Buddhahood the number of kalpas that have passed is an immeasurable hundreds, thousands, ten thousands, millions, trillions, asamkhyas. Constantly I have preached the Law, teaching, converting countless millions of living beings, causing them to enter the Buddha way, all this for immeasurable kalpas. Gyanipundit (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Gautama and Siddartha the same?

I have watched many documentaries on this so-called one world new age religion of the west called new-age buddhism. Its called buddhism because of its lies though. Gautama and Siddartha are two different people. Not only that but I will step it up a notch and claim Shakyhumni is a different person as well. If there is one jesus christ there is one Gautama. He was a giant from a royal family of north east india. He was of Japanese ancestry. The other demonic figure idolized or portrayed in eastern statues is siddartha. He was an indian prince from South-western India whom crown was over thrown. Gautama was born in late may and a well known traveler affiliated with Orpheus whom died in an urban environment. He had a wife like the other version of the story. Sid was born in April or late march he was human but humans had thick yellow skin 1200bce via traits from the past races (see rama's small human dragon race of nara). He died under a tree by eating a seed and entered nirvana because the seed is poison to a being whom's mind is that far into 'enlightment' or actual creation of forms in the east. One version of the story has a wife much later after 6 yrs of meditation whilst the other version was born with a wife within the palace city walls. Buddha never had two wives, so Gautama was born 400bce around war-time in india and spread of economic war governments whilst siddartha was 1200bce in tribal lands where competitions took place. Gautama was tricked by not turning a guest down when offered bread. His bowls could not take the wheat and he slowly started to die, he went into the city to die. Both died by simply eating. The reason why there is a tibet and etc was 100 bce creation of Tibet by a monk named shakyhumni. His name is taken from scripture, as well he helped create china and the long line of lamas or disciples or aspirants via egypto-tibetan sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asfd666 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Pretty interesting stuff huh? And whats funny is I researched the names and Shakyhumni was a white aryan japanese. Silver skin. His name is Shakuhan which is a word Shakyhumni in chinese before it was chinese. Nope couldn't be the same people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asfd666 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the above is all unsourced and fringey in extremis. However, it's interesting to reflect on the Buddha's names. Jayarava has some interesting points on his blog. Basically, the name Siddhartha appears in scripture very rarely and is quite late. Most of the time in scripture, he is named simply Gautama — in fact, it's not totally clear that that is a family name rather than a given name. Part of the mystery of the name is that the Buddha's family is often identified as a Kṣatriya clan, whereas Gautama is a well-known Brahmin name. Jayarava observes that the Buddha's father is never identified as a Gautama, but his mother and step-mother (who were sisters) are both called Gotami. He concludes that the Buddha's people took their clan names through matrilineage and his mother's family (who were Koliyans) were a Brahmin clan.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

True, Gautama's race or family betrayed him and created the japanese, just like shakyhumni did so the tibet race (which as we know became chinese as well as the japanese race) and siddartha the indian race, but that would be too extreme wouldn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asfd666 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 August 2012

Gautam Buddha Was not Avatar Of Vishnu. Please remove this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.248.108 (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Birthplace(Kapileswara, Orissa)

Some of the references for birthplace in Orissa (#7 - 15) in fact state Lumbini as birth place, some only speculate Orisa could be the birthplace, and some are opinion essays. The contention that Orrisa is the birthplace should remain, but needs to be reworded to reflect correct information from credible and reliable sources only. -BikashDai (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

can not edit [even with a registration]

The word Buddha is a title for the first awakened being in an era.

the concept buddha means awakened one, there are COUNTLESS buddhas but no one can be lord gautam buddha who was born n brought up in nepal and he started his preaching from Nepal.

PadmaPhala (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I Agree with PadmaPhala about the meaning of Buddha. There is another page Buddhahood that explains the meaning of Buddha. A disambiguation page will be necessary after we have wikipedia articles about other major buddhas. Currently, Gautam Buddha is the only buddha known to the vast majority of the world. BikashDai (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 August 2012

gautam buddha was not born in india... and kapilvastu is not in india.. he was born in kapilvastu which is in lumbini district of NEpal.. please correct it 14.102.109.172 (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 13:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

edit request on 31 August 2012 Here I want to protest and to confirm again that Gautam Bhudda was born in Nepal's kapilvastu of Lumbini District. He was from the Sakya Community of the area, hence he is also called as Sakya Muni. The picture in of the birth place that is taken in the wikipidia is of that same place. you can confirm that via searching google earth as well. This is a great mistake that you should correct as soon as possible, since it hurt the feeling of all us Nepalese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirugrg2012 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• What exactly is the content that you want to change? - SudoGhost 04:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
• The birthplace of Lord Buddha should be changed to it's respectable and original place. i.e Kapilbastu, Lu,bini, Nepal. And the information of the birthplace as Indian subcontinent should be removed. For real information on Lord Buddha's birthplace feel free to visit Nepal and visit the birthplace yourself and read the ancient books in the various old monasteries related to Lord Buddha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nepami (talk • contribs) 15:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • You said the same thing below, please keep the discussion in one place, I've responded there. - SudoGhost 16:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Correct the birthplace of Gautama Buddha, and the information related to Suddhodana

The birthplace of Lord Gautama Buddha (Founder of buddhism) as mentioned in the wiki is given as from the Indian subcontinent. Lord Gautama Buddha was born in 'Kapilbastu', Lumbini, Nepal and Nepal is not an Indian Subcontinent. Lord Buddha was originally a prince of Kapilvastu who was born and raised there. He latter left the palace seeking enlightenment and went to the south(Indian region). The sources of this information are the books about Lord Gautama Buddha. And also the 'Shakya's are the original resident of Nepal. 'Suddhodan' the father of Lord Gautama Buddha was the king of Kapilvastu and not the 'elected chief of a tribal confederacy' as mentioned in the wiki. These can also be found on the books about Lord Gautama Buddha and his life. The originally written books describe these clearly while the other books printed by copying the information (By mostly Indians) from these books describes the birth place and the king as completely different places and position. You can find the books at the old monasteries dedicated to Lord Buddha in Nepal. And also the other things to prove the birthplace of Lord Gautama Buddha is that the king Ashoka build the 'Ashoka pillar' at Lord Gautama Buddha's birth place as his gratitude lies also in Kapilvastu, Lumbini, Nepal. Nepal is the original birth place of Lord Gautama Buddha and it is not any Indian subcontinent. And if anybody seeks more source or proofs i gladly welcome them to Nepal and visit the place.

So i request the writer of this article to review the content and do the correction that is needed in the wiki about Lord Gautama Buddha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nepami (talk • contribs) 15:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Nepal is in the Indian subcontinent. The exact place of birth is not universally agreed upon, although it is usually given as in present-day Nepal, the only thing all of the differing sources on the birthplace have in common is that it is somewhere in the Indian subcontinent, and all of this is reflected in the article. - SudoGhost 15:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not about the agreeing. The birth place is located in the Kapilvastu, Lumbini, Nepal. It is discussed by other people as it is in other places but is truely in Nepal. So the place name should be mentioned in the aricle's first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nepami (talk • contribs) 16:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, that's not reflected by reliable sources. We cannot say "the birthplace is X" as if it is a universally accepted fact, because it isn't. The first sentence of the article does not say anything about a birthplace whatsoever, so there isn't any incorrect information to fix. - SudoGhost 20:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 September 2012

Following section is very wrong and need to be corrected please. 'Gautama is said to have developed supramundane abilities including: a painless birth conceived without intercourse; no need for sleep, food, medicine, or bathing, although engaging in such "in conformity with the world' please contact Kalyana dharma peramuna through info@srikalyanadharma.org(web site wwww.srikalyanadharma.org) This is a very trustworthy organization with participation of highly educated buddhist monks in Sri Lanka. Buddhism is not a religion.It's a philosophy which guide you how to get rid of sufferings in our lives by understanding the cause of suffering. Buddhism shows the path to understand the link between mind and suffering. 64.231.65.186 (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the objected to passage is speaking of one of many traditions, which is in conflict with a/the Sri Lankan traditions beliefs. Either way, need some sort of source that isn't an e-mail address.--Tznkai (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Setting this as answered (and it is denied)--Tznkai (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 September 2012

In the first paragraph, it is written that buddha was born in indian subcontinent. It is absolutely true but it gives a vague meaning and most people understands this expression as buddha was born in India.

I would like to request to avoid such ambiguity and clearly mention that buddha was born in Lumbini,Nepal.

I think this would give more clear view.

Regards 165.229.108.130 (talk) 08:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

See the discussions above for this issue. Torreslfchero (talk) 08:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I am closing this request as it appears this issue is currently being discussed elsewhere on this talk page. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Sources on Gautama Buddha's birthplace

This is becoming a habit...

Kapilavastu

A quick scroll through my library gave four sources. In chronology of first publishing c.q revised publication:

A.K. Warder 2000 (first edition 1970, third revised edition 2000)

• Warder, A.K. (2000), Indian Buddhism, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers

Warder writes (p.45):

The Buddha [...] was born in the Sakya Republic, which was the city state of Kapilavastu, a very small state just inside the modern state boundary of Nepal against the Indian frontier.

Hans Wolfgang Schumann, 1998 (first print 1982)

• Schumann, Hans Wolfgang (1998), De historische Boeddha, Rottersam, Netherlands: Asoka

Schumann writes (p18):

Kapilavatthu, de vaderstad van de Boeddha, waarin hij de eerste 29 jaar van zijn leven doorbracht, ligt niet ver van de grens die tegenwoordig het koninkrijk Nepal van het staatsgebied van de republiek India scheidt. De vader van de Boeddha heette Suddhodana 'Die zuivere rijst verbouwt' en behoorde tot de stam de Sakiya's. De Sakiya's waren khattiya's en behoorden dus tot de (toen nog) hoogste kaste, de krijgs- of beter: ambtsadel, die het bestuur en de rechtshandhaving van de Sakiya-republiek tot taak had. Uit hun midden werd, indien nodig, de nieuwe raja gekozen, de president der republiek en voorzitter van de raadsvergadering. In het midden van de zesde eeuw v. Chr. was het Suddhodana die het raja-ambt vervulde."

In translation (Google translate, in brackets my adaptations):

Kapilavatthu, the home town of the Buddha, [where] he [lived the] first 29 years of his life, is not far from the border that now [separates] the kingdom of Nepal [from] the area of ​​the Republic of India. The father of the Buddha [was called] Suddhodana "[Who grows]] pure rice" and belonged to the tribe [of the] Sakiya. The Sakiya's were Khattiya's and thus belonged to the (then) highest caste, the martial-or better: nobility of office, which [had the task of] the administration and enforcement of the Sakiya republic. From their midst was, if necessary, [elected] the newraja, the president of the republic and president of the council. In the middle of the sixth century BC. [it] was Suddhodana [who fulfilled] the raja-office.

Maurice Walsh, 1995

• Walsh, Maurice (1995), The Long Discourses of the Buddha. A Translation of the Digha Nikaya, Boston: Wisdom Publications

Walsh writes (p.20):

He belonged to the Sakya clan dwelling on the edge of the Himalayas, his actual birthplace being a few miles north of the present-day Indian border, in Nepal. His father was in fact an elected chief of the clan rather than the king he was later made out to be, though his title was raja - a term which only partly corresponds to our word 'king'. Some of the states of North India at that time were kingdoms and others republics, and the Sakyan republic was subject to the powerful king of neighbouring Kosala, which lay to the south.

Peter Harvey, 1990 (first publication, reprint 1995)

• Harvey, Peter (1995), An introduction to Buddhism. Teachings, history and practices, Cambridge University Press

Harvey writes (p.14):

We know that Gotama was born in the small republic of the Sakka (Skt Sākya) people, which straddles the present border with Nepal and had Kapilavatthu as its captial.

Harvey also writes (p.15):

In the early Buddhist texts, there is no continuous life of the Buddha, as these concentrated on his teachings. Only later, between 200 BC and 200 AD, did a growing interest in the Buddha's person lead to various schools producing continuous 'biographies', which drew on scattered accounts in the existing Sutta and Vinaya collections, and floating oral tarditions. These 'biographies' include the sarvastivadins' Lalitavistara, the Theravadins' Nidanakatha, and Asvaghosa's poem, the Buddhacarita. The details of these are in general agreement, but while they must clearly be based around historical facts, they also contain legendary and mythological embellisgments, and it is often not possible to sort out one from the other. While the bare historical basis of the traditional biography will never be known, as it stands it gives a great insight into Buddhism by enabling as to see what the meaning of the Buddha's life is to the Buddhists: what lessons it is held to contain.

Conclusion

These four sources agree that Gautama Buddha was born "was born in the Sakya Republic, which was the city state of Kapilavastu, a very small state just inside the modern state boundary of Nepal against the Indian frontier" (Warder):

• The Buddha was born at the Indian sub-continent.
• The Buddha was born in the Sakya republic.
• The Buddha was not born in present-day Nepal; 2500 years ago there was no present-day Nepal, but the Sakya-state.
• The Sakya-state was situated in what today is Nepal
• The Buddha was not the son of a king, but the son of an "elected chief".
• The Buddha's biography was written later from scattered pieces of information.

Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Orisa c.q. Kapileswar

• [7] No sources or references.
• [8] Very interesting. Unfortunately no written sources (books, journals, etc.) ...
• [9] Copies other sites; no references & sources.
• The Orissa historical research journal, Volume 47 Really interesting. But I've no idea what the credibilities of this journal are.
• [10] A book publication. That's good - though it does not prove yet that Orisa was the Buddha's birthplace.

At least it's interesting, though I do get the impression that these webpages are mainly published by Orisa-connected people, wether citisens or archeaologists working there. Nevertheless, at least it's interesting. Compliment for the effort to find sources! Friendly regards to everyone, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC).

Valid references should remain but the questionable sources should be removed to to comply with the Wikipedia policy on relaible sources and also for neutral point of view. Thank you Joshua for checking them all. I was not able to verify all in-text references because some of those links were blocked by my institution's firewall for web security reasons.--BikashDai (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Inspiration of Gautama Buddha

Two primary means of inspiration of the initiating figures in all beliefs exist, either by dreams or by visions. Both are the means by which the Creator (any other defining name) speaks to humanity (see Numbers 12:6 in the Bible) to inspire them for: 1. work, 2. life goals, 3. relationships, 4. timely information or knowledge, 5. principles or morals to live by, 6. health and diet, 7. foreseen cautions and dangers.

All dreamed or visioned content falls under these 7 categories (or their sub-categories).

Gautama Buddha was a visioner (so were Mohammed, Guru Nanak, Nostradamus and some of the biblical prophets. The most apocalyptic and prophetic content of the Bible is dreamed). Very little is said about his visioning or prophetic content he received. Not much is said about how he taught his followers to vision or how to use what they got as visions. Is this oversight by the site's maintainers, or the effects of religion's bureaucracy and the related ignorance and inability of later followers? (Every religion suffers a loss of knowledge about the inspiration and nature of its use of its founding figure(s) due to bureaucratized disbelief and ignorance of the very people who took on the job of maintaining ALL the knowledge, methods and techniques. The knowledge and use is always replaced or superimposed by rites, rituals, calendrical events and other social or superficial content making emulation of the functions of inspiration extremely difficult and frequently devalued.) 67.225.52.80 (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC) Alan Harmony — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.52.80 (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs reliable sources to verify information in articles. Do you have any reliable sources for this? - SudoGhost 16:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Reliable? hardly... few take anything not researched by English or American professors to be reliable or verified. 67.225.52.80 (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC) Alan Harmony

About birth year and death year of Gautama Buddha at en.wikpedia.org

Almost all historical records accept that.........

• Buddha was born on a full moon day in BC 623.
• Buddhism was founded by Lord Buddha in BC 588.
• The Lord Buddha died (Nirvana) in BC 543 at the age of 80. These are correct years about Buddha.

But I saw years of Gautama Buddha at your en.wikipedia.org cited about Buddha's INCORRECT birth year and Buddha's INCORRECT death (Nirvana) year. You can do verify that history of Shwedagon Pagoda's ages in Burma (Myanmar). According to historical records, the Shwedagon Pagoda is over 2600 years old since B.C 588. Shwedagon is the oldest pagoda and the most ancient historical pagoda in Burma and in the world. The Shwedagon Pagoda, enshrining four Buddha hair relics, was built by King Okkalapa and two brother merchants in BC 588, the year when Lord Buddha gained enlightenment. Everyone can visit and testify to any document. You can visit following websites.

• [[11]]
• [[12]]
• [[13]]
• [(please see page 10 and 11)]
• [[14]]
• [[15]]
• [[16]]
• [[17]]

Thank you for your reading!

180.183.120.76 (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

According to the review article cited in the intro to this entry ("The Dating of the Historical Buddha: A Review Article" by L.S. Cousins):

Within the Eastern Buddhist tradition of China, Vietnam, Korea and Japan (especially the latter two countries) the traditional date for the Mahaparinibbana (death) of the Buddha was 949 B.C., although a variant giving 878 B.C. is also possible. Earlier and down to the fifth century A.D. a date of 686 B.C. seems to have been fairly common. ... In the Northern Buddhism of the Tibeto-Mongolian cultural area the Mahaparinibbana was officially dated to 881 B.C., the origin of which is not clear. Both Chinese and Tibetan scholars were, however, well aware that many other dates had been advanced. This is in sharp contrast to the Southern Buddhist tradition, which has retained no memory of any disagreement over the basic chronology of events since the Buddha's lifetime. ... The era they preserve places the Buddha's Mahaparinibbana in 543 B.C.

So, it is not the case that all traditional Buddhists agree on the Buddha's dates. More recent scholarship casts doubts on all of those traditional dates. Cousins concludes, "we should no doubt speak of a date for the Buddha's Mahaparinibbana of c.400 B.C - I choose the round number deliberately to indicate that the margins are rather loose."—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

One of the problems with these "protected" topics is that once again we depend on the ever so careful and always repeating editor which has given us a homogenized version of history. When the article states, regarding the birth year of Buddha, that "most scholars agree", they fail to also mention that a good percentage of these scholars cite each other or copy the copies of a previous copier. But since Buddhism is so unique, we must fail not to take certain things into consideration, such as how could the largest biography of one man (by 300 BC)have been somewhat codified in several centuries. By Asoka's time Buddhism shows all the developmental signs of being at least several centuries old. It is well known that the Buddhists and Jains both claimed the king Ajatasatru as a convert to thier faith, and although most scholars agree that not one Indian religion has correctly recorded the order of kings from Upper India, it can be reasonably certain that Ajatasatru's date is firm. That the Buddhists went about trying to convert both the lower class and demented kings is well known in Indian history, so much so that, before his conversion to Buddhism, it would be right to say that Hitler was an Asoka. This is just one point of many that you probably wont get from the "experts" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.161.30 (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)