Wikipedia talk:Gautama Buddha Birthplace sources and quotes

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:Gautama Buddha Birthplace sources and quotes

Reason for creating this page

On Gautama Buddha and Talk: Gautama Buddha various possible places where the Buddha's birth is being mentioned, and "supported" by various references. To provide wider care for this discussion, this page is made, in analogy with the source of Bodhidharma/Place of Birth. This provides the possibility to provide an overview of the source, and quotes from these sources, rather than the reference list in the original article. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:03, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:Gautama Buddha Birthplace sources and quotes

Moving the page?

I want to move this page to "Gautama Buddha source/Birthplace for Gautama Buddha", or "Talk: Buddha Gautama/source of birth place for Buddha Gautama", to make it clear that this is an "appendix" instead of an "independent" article. I think this might be problematic for some people. Any opinions whatsoever? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:12, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest the same thing to take this to the talk page! Joseph the author (talk) - Comment that has not ended adding 17:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Edit war

What's going on here?!? Does someone somewhere start a camp to promote Nepal? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Bad organization

This unique "written" and "web" source distribution is unique to this article --- I hope! Yes, on Wikipedia we want to pay attention to how reliable a source is. But whether you find it in electronic or written form is not important! It's the publisher's reputation and the kind of articles that matter. If you have a dispute with a particular unreliable website, take them to WP: RSN, but do not share the section in this way! Wnt (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

src: beyondforeignness.org

Remove/merge/move backwards from main space?

Wikis are not successful; it's just for quotes, not for additional explanations. In the meantime, I have cut the quotes. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:09, September 18, 2013 (UTC)

• Questions - Joshua Jonathan, as you made this initially and there seems to be a consensus to it, would you oppose to tamper with this article in Users: Joshua Jonathan/Where Gotama Buddha Birth and only integrate the appropriate content into any relevant articles? - Aoidh (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply An sich good idea, I've considered it myself too, but... I hope the article will still be edited, because this is a highly contentious topic. See Talk: Buddha Gautama. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:38, September 23, 2013 (UTC)

There are userspace pages that are still being edited by others, it depends on you how to handle it because this is your page and you create it, but that way it is not in the main room at all (using the main space talk page for categorize it rather unusual, because that's usually only for discussion of archived conversation pages). I've deleted the link to this article from Gautama Buddha, which I believe is the only link of the main room to this page. Unless anyone has an objection to doing so, I do not see a problem with moving it back into your user space; RM seems unnecessary as there seems to be a consensus to move it from the main room. I disagree 100% by removing it because I think it can be improved but I have to respect the consensus, so I do not think there's any opposition to moving it, as long as you're okay with moving it back to your userspace I imagine we can go ahead and do that. - Aoidh (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Will it be moved later with the previous version including? While in my userspace, I prefer a longer quote. Can be useful to link to Talk Pages from Gautama Buddha. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

History is preserved and you will be free to do this with this page as you wish, as you create this page and it will return in your user space. I do not see anyone who object to moving it there; do you have any objections to do so now? - Aoidh (talk) 09:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

See next section: move to Talk: Source/quotation and sources of Buddha Gautama, for reference to future discussions. It's easier than repeating again and again the same arguments, references, and quotes. Greetings, - Let's talk! 10:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Is everyone okay with that? I'm not sure what will happen to this conversation page if the article is then moved to the talk page itself. I would like to file the issue before I move on and move the page, otherwise I will move it today. I will move the article somewhere , but just need to know where without causing the problem causing people to say "leave it alone". I am frustrated with just leaving it here all the time. This conversation page may be quickly deleted, there is a category tag for such an event. But from what I can see, there is nothing fundamentally valuable worthwhile for posterity on this page of talks.Camelbinky (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I suspect you will get an extra, blank, talk page for the newly created page. We'll see... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

------------------------------------ - ------------------------------------------------- - ------------- Not sure what the result of this discussion is, but after CSD tagging, I've deleted the article because it is cross namespace redirect (a wiki article is being redirected to a talk page}} that we can not have.No substantive content, still in Talk: Gautama Buddha/Birthplace source and quote page is currently sitting without articles, and I'm not sure what to do with it. It can stay here for a while while I try to do something. Ged English 13:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay. After re-reading the discussion here and in the transfer request below, I have made a decision. This is not a binding decision, but I am just trying to tie the end of this talk page without articles (articles I delete). The user page is the most reasonable choice. Someone suggested to move it to the subpage of the talk page of the main article. That's possible, but the problem with it is there is no place for this page to go; You can not have a talk page on the talk page. I will move this page and draft article to my userspace and connect them back together so this is the talk page from the others. I have no problem with it being in my room, but also if you want to move to someone else, let me know and I will move it. Ged English Ã,14:13, 2 October 2013 ( UTC)

Your solution works really well. The discussion below can be ignored regardless of outcome, the consensus of this discussion that it does not include being replaced, as does the consensus on the Jimbo talk page where the public decides not to be worthy of a separate article.Camelbinky (speaking) 18:28, 2 October 2013 ( UTC)

src: bhclondon.org.uk

Request move

More sources

• Mohapatra, G. (2000). Two Buddha Birth Plates, Indologica Taurinensia 26, 113-119 JimRenge (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for writing! Bladesmulti (talk) 09:12, November 25, 2014 (UTC)

This one argues for Lumbini, providing the source and presenting quotations from the canon. I think it's worth reading but probably biased because it does not even mention the less likely alternatives.

• Weise, Kai et al. (2013). Lumbini Sacred Garden - Perception of Buddha's Birthplace, Paris: UNESCO JimRenge (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Nice to read about her relationship with Lumbini. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:03, November 25, 2014 (UTC)

Bihar

Some also claim that he was born in Bihar. I only have one quote. [1] Quotations can be considered as reliable ones. I just added it here for preference. Since Bihar is usually regarded as the birthplace of Buddhism, it is possible to have confusion. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:09, November 25, 2014 (UTC)

In his encyclopedia of birth control, L. Bullough calls Bihar the birthplace of the Buddha, without giving any source or argument. The author may not be an expert on Buddhism, history or archeology. I agree, he may be confused. I think he should not be quoted. JimRenge (talk) 12:33, November 25, 2014 (UTC)

Unless we take "full IDIOT view": each source will be judged on its merits, if some do bring it up (which does not mean that you are idiots, Blades, that you find this source reveals your intuitive ability.I think you are a great software tester, where is one wrong punctuation that disrupts the whole program?). Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:38, November 25, 2014 (UTC)

The quotation seems reliable, but unreliable for Buddhism, because he is not an expert on it. I say that even if the quotes seem reliable (see the publisher, ISBN), it is possible that they are biased, and here the author must have Buddhism that is confusing with the Buddha. On this page we can make a list of opinions about birthplace, I do it only for preference, so if any other quote ever appears with the same type of information, we can identify. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:43, November 25, 2014 (UTC)

Kapilesvar

I have added a publication by Hartmann who argues quite convincingly against Kapilesvar. I propose to remove the Tripathy source from Buddhist articles. He did not donate anything useful that has not been published, he does not seem to be an expert on the topic (political dissertation) and he has a clear COI. The use of this source seems appropriate to provoke our Nepali colleagues. See also Abecedare's comments on this page. JimRenge (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

My two cents

Here four competitors are listed as possible Buddha's birthplace; and I think this is very misleading. I feel that there should be only two competitors on this list: Lumbini and Kapileshowr. Two other places of Tilaurakot in Nepal and Piprahawa in India are not competitors for the birthplace of Buddha. After carefully reading the article in Piprahwa and this paper and by Huntington (already referenced in the pages), I feel that the controversy between these two places is not much about the exact birth place of Buddha, but the identification of the ancient city of Kapilvastu, which is the capital Sakya country. This is a big difference.

No one denies the authenticity of the Ashokan inscription in Lumbini, which provides direct written evidence of the birthplace of Buddha. Jataka also claimed that Siddhartha was born from Mayadevi not in Kapilvastu but somewhere outside the city. I do not think there is anything controversial about this part of the story and can be considered credible. So it does not make sense to claim that the Buddha was born in Kapilvastu at all, wherever his location was on the map. Even the authors quoted on the project page, if you read carefully, do not claim Kapilvastu as the place of his birth. Instead they claim that the Buddha was born in the Republic of Sakya, which owns Kapilvastu as its capital, which is true but rather vague. It's like saying I was born in Japan, which has Tokyo as its capital, but does not specify exactly where in Japan I was born. However, the controversy among scholars is about the identification of the town of Kapilvastu itself, with some identifying in Tilaurakot in Nepal, while others identify it in Piprahwa in India.

That being said, I think Kapileshowr, Orissa as the birthplace of Buddha is a real stretch. Like someone mentioned earlier, Hartmann's article provides a convincing argument that this inscription is a forgery and is impossible dated before 1928; and most importantly, Hartmann states that the view that Kapileshowr is the true birthplace of the Buddha is a peripheral point of view among scholars. Thus, in accordance with Wikipedia policy: Fringe theory, it is best to give Kapileshow only footnotes. Thus I would recommend Lumbini to be declared the birthplace of Buddha in the main article about Siddhartha Gautama without any ambiguity.

Applause,

(Manoguru (talk) 19:17, December 1, 2014 (UTC))

You did not provide any reference to your changes; and this page is intended to be a general overview of the various theories, no matter how strange, so that we can shorten endless discussions in the Buddhist courtyard. Toast to you too, - Let's talk! 19: 38, December 1, 2014 (UTC)

PS: my two cents: no one knows where he was born - and that does not really matter. Just follow the path, that's what matters. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:44, December 1, 2014 (UTC)

No problem? You must be kidding! Then why are you even bothering to create this page? BTW, I am not religious and I am here only for the sake of history. You can keep your religion for yourself. If you really ask for references, then I might as well lower the parts of Kapilvastu and Piprahwa, because as I said before, references and quotes do not claim that Siddhartha was born in these places at all and that the controversy is about a completely different matter. It's just a reckless scholarship. Also you seem to be confused about the concept of neutrality versus objectivity. Neutrality is an openness to any idea, regardless of their truth or falsehood, just as this page does. While objectivity weighs evidence and opposes an idea, and ensures its benefits. While in his presence, your eloquent assertion is true that no one can be one hundred percent sure exactly where the Buddha was born, but there is considerable historical evidence that gives him the confidence in which he was born. The data may be wrong, but it's up to you to point out that it's wrong. In the meantime, that's all we get; and we must accept it as "so far not fabricated". This is how historical research works, whether you like it or not, and progress through consensus among scholars. I do not intend to ramble, but you P.S. just cover my hat. Peace. (Manoguru (talk) 22:15, December 1, 2014 (UTC))

------------------------------------ - ------------------------------------------------- - ------------- I think you are right, Kapilavastu only deduces the reason. However, this page provides an overview of the source. I will make adjustments. Thank you! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:05, December 2, 2014 (UTC)

Lumbini is also disputed. Starting with Alexander Cunningham, who dug many Buddhist and Hindu sites in his archaeological research has also denied both Lumbini and Kapilvastu, he added that they have no evidence. These theories have been supported by other scholars as well. This is not about what is widely believed, but rather about how others treat these theories. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that the phrase "Most experts consider Kapilavastu, Nepal today, to be the birthplace of the Buddha." enough supported by the given source.

Huntington asserts that: "except for Rajagriha, there is no site associated with Shakyamuni founded by contemporary archaeological evidence but mostly known by what this writer would do in Mauryan's validation." (Huntington 1986, p. 56) JimRenge (talk) 10:04, December 2, 2014 (UTC)

Now I see why that part was changed, just now, thanks for pointing. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It is interesting to see how two people can read the same passage and go with different understandings. Here are my two further cents: 1. There is a 36-year-old break that separates Sircar (from 1965) and Hartmann's (from 1991). 2. It should be noted that Hartmann's article is not about the birthplace of Buddha, and the criticism of Kapileswar's hypothesis by Sircar is quoted briefly. Hartmann only reports what others say and say about Kapileshowr. 3. When Hartmann wrote, "The inscription is generally considered to be false", the word generally has been used to denote the previous conclusion, which means there is already an academic consensus. about the spuriousness of the Kapileswar inscription. Conclusion: All this shows that Hartmann is indeed a tertiary source, as far as Kapileswar is concerned, as well as reliable, given the meticulousness of the main article on the Buddhist calendar.

If Hartmann's report on Kapileswar's folly is true, is there any surprise that you find very little scientific work on Kapileswar's hypothesis? Also, it is a mistake to regard the lack of a number of scientific criticism Kapileswar means the existence of scientific support for Kapileswar. In the practice of research, it is sufficient to refute a claim once, unless the reprimand can be proved untrue. If rejection occurs, then the next researcher does not need to repeat the claim as a possible contradictory hypothesis. This is evident in the Piprahwa-Tilaurakot debate, in which Kapileswar was never mentioned as an alternative competitor.

As far as I know, the old allegations of lies, not least since 1965, have not been discussed in the recent works of Mohapatra and Tripathy. I'm not sure about Mahapatra, because I do not have access to her work; but I am skeptical that he has addressed this issue, otherwise I am sure Mohapatra and Tripathy will mention it. There seems to be no scientific dialogue for the Kapileswar case like the Piprahwa-Tilaurakot debate. As I mentioned in the previous post, I appreciate your efforts to maintain a neutral point of view. But you seem to have lost your objectivity in the process. Lumbini and Lumbai do not have the same hypothesis.

Peace. Manoguru (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I just found this old blog post from 2010 that discusses Orissa's hypothesis here and here. Here is also a quote by Huntington on p. 57, the 3rd column, on Chakradhar Mahapatra's book, "... it is of little scientific value, if the reader has sufficiently thorough knowledge of archaeological pilgrimage routes." Here are some links that address this issue here and here.

Loss my objectivity? Hmm, I do not think I agree with that. But it does not matter; I appreciate your efforts and additions. This is the kind of info we need to persuade (if possible...) the peripheral theorists. Sincerely, - Let's talk! 09:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I did not mean to call you that. The whole posted is addressed to JimRenge's reply to my previous post. Sorry if I caused an unexpected violation. I also add contemporary testimony about the falsification of the Kapileshowr inscription as told by U.C. Mohanty. If that is not convincing, then it will not exist. Manoguru (talk) 10:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I am very happy with your efforts. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Buddhist born in Iran?

In the spirit of NPOV, let me contribute as well. Here is one article which states that Buddha was born in Iran. Manoguru (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Good reading. The article is as much as or more about Zoroaster, whose birthplace is even more debated, whether he was born in Afghanistan or Pakistan or Gujarat. Although Buddhism was a popular religion in Iran, before the formation of the Sasanian Empire. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Maoguru, did you really pass that article? I quit aleady after two sentences... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Lol, no. I also quit the article after the first paragraph. I posted this as a tongue on the cheek. Manoguru (talk) 10:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course, it looks like there's an attack page. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Redirect for discussion

The transfer of Kapilavastu (Shakya capital) to Kapilvastu_District (Nepal) is currently being discussed. Your comments will be highly appreciated. JimRenge (talk) 12:22, April 23, 2015 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia