Talk:The Buddha

Requested move 31 March 2023

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

• Strong oppose - I'm not sure what the rationale for the RM is. The RM proposal does not say why the current title is problematic, nor why the proposed title should be used, nor is any evidence provided to show why the article should be renamed. Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it is cited, yet the RM is an attempt to fix something that isn't broken. As was made clear in the previous RM that changed the title to its current one, English-language sources do not support "Gautama Buddha" as the WP:COMMONNAME for the subject, and this subject is the overwhelming WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this title. Apples-to-oranges comparisons to articles like Dwayne Johnson (who perhaps was as one point more commonly known by The Rock but his career as an actor has overshadowed that) are not a sufficient rationale to try to overturn a recent move simply because the proposer "fail[s] to understand". Consensus can certainly change, but we just had this discussion and it's only been a few months. The nom brings forward no novel argument that would warrant reopening this topic so soon. - Aoidh (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Every other Buddha's in this portal has similar naming structure, so I don't see how this needs further reasoning how or why English-language sources do not support this. Eg- Kassapa Buddha, Sumedha Buddha, etc.

  Also, this is relating to a cultural and religion topic, why you are looking for English-Language sources only, is quite ignorant and probably very offensive to people who are not primarily English speakers, hence why, I have read many people citing other Wikipedia language pages for Gautama Buddha as the preferred naming structure.

  I compared with a wrestler and fictional superhero as that's what this naming structure has brought Siddhartha Gautama down to. You are treating him like fictional character, a superhero or a person trying to go by the stage name for a profession. He is a person yet his article is referring to him by the title that was most associated to him. Let's not forget this article is related to Siddhartha Gautama. Please give example's where title has only been used to refer to a person.

  A few examples for my reasoning.

  1) Mahatma Gandhi - Mahatma is a title not a name yet the title is mostly if not only used for Mohandas Gandhi.

  2) Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother - First of all, Queen Elizabeth is the most popular queen at this age and according to the logic of why The Buddha should be used, perhaps Elizabeth II should have her page renamed to The Queen. Anyway, to avoid confusion with Elizabeth II, Queen Elizabeth is most popularly known as The Queen Mother and her page reflects that. But somehow, here we are trying to create confusion than trying to educate people and remove confusion.

  3) Mansa Musa - Same reasoning as above.

  4) Jesus - No one could say, if Christ is more popularly known or Jesus. And, while Christ is a title that is only used to refer to one person, it is not the name for the page. In fact, the title has a separate page - Christ (title).

  It is quite ignorant and blasphemous to make light of the subject. People need to know about the person in this article not the title. According to me, this naming structure is encouraging a mindset that this is a fictional or mythical person. I could then understand why some people would be against the idea for change to create confusion and spread misinformation or rather the lack of proper information. The core principle of Buddhism is that every person can and probably someday will achieve the state of Buddha, so referring to Siddhartha Gautama as The Buddha is quite against the idea of what Buddhism is about or what he taught. Which from a religion standpoint I presume is very offensive to non-English speakers, some might see this as a win but I consider this as a disrespect to the person behind the title and mystifying title itself. CaseNotClosedYet (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: What Aoidh said. Overall, a somewhat baffling RM. The message seems to be "Siddhartha Gautama" would be best, which is consistent with the Dwayne Johnson material further up, but failing that, since it was already tried last year, a default back to the previous poorly supported page title would suffice ... hang on, what? Setting aside the general comparisons with fictional super heroes and pro-wrestlers, umm, sourcing? "Gautama Buddha" went the way of the dodos because it was a total flunk of a common name. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Kindly refer to the above comment for any confusion you have. Also, Gautama Buddha is quite a common name in non-English speaking communities or people who actually follow Buddhism. It gives respect to both the person and also his status as a Buddha. Hence, the case with Mahatma Gandhi. CaseNotClosedYet (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: per the above, and previous discussions. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose move and snowclose. This request is nonsensical. O.N.R. ^(talk) 18:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose and WP:SNOWCLOSE per other editors comments. – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 19:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral. It's not inherently wrong or bad, but it makes infinitely more sense to me to have this page at Buddha, following Britannica. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead Sentence needs to focus on "Notable" aspects

Current lead: Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha ('the awakened'), was a wandering ascetic and religious teacher who lived in South Asia during the 6th or 5th century BCE and founded Buddhism.

Notable: I think The Buddha is not primarily notable or known for being a wandering ascetic, but rather for being a religious teacher and founder of Buddhism as per majority of WP:RS reliable sources

Giving such high priority to "wandering ascetic" seems to violates several WP guidelines

"Wandering ascetic" can be mentioned in relevant subsequent sentences.

Therefore, the lead voice needs to updated to:

Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha ('the awakened'), was a religious teacher and founder of Buddhism who lived in South Asia during the 6th or 5th century BCE.

See similar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates

RogerYg (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if you understand of those policies. Regarding WP:WEIGHT, is there a majority of researchers who doubt that he was a sramana? What's the best-known story about the Buddha? His ascetic life, that is, a wanderer. And: the Buddha was a sramana; that's relevant, as is his teachings did not exist in a vacuum, but are related to the broader sramanic tradition. Furthermore, he encouraged people to follow his example, and also become sramanas.

How this violates WP:NOTABILITY is a mystery to me; maybe you should actually read that policy. Same for WP:RS; are there sources which dispute the fact that he was a sramana? Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! for kind response.

I understand that I got confused between Notable and Notability, and I would like to withdraw the ''WP:Notability argument, as Notability is more about whether a topic is important enough to be published on Wiki.

My main argument is regarding Wikipedia policy for First Sentence: "what is notable" for the first sentence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section_TT_first_sentence_content

The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?

You seem to have very good knowledge of Buddhism, and I respect that. I never disputed that Buddha was a wanderig ascetic. Of course, he was . But is "wandering ascetic" the top notable aspect about Buddha.

The answer to that is probably no. The most notable aspects are that he was a spiritual/religious teacher and the founder of Buddhism.

Though, I think we need to add philosopher to it

The next sentence can be about the wandering ascetic aspect. RogerYg (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

That he was a sramana, a 'wandering ascetic', is one of the most notable aspects of the Buddha; 'religious homelessness' is the essence of his vocation. "Philosopher" is tricky, and has been debated many times before. You're right that "wandering ascetic" was repeated; I've edited the lead diff to change this. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Dear Joshua Jonathan,

Many scholars have been debating on "what is the most notable aspect" of Buddha for thousands of years, and I don't think we have sources to support that there is a clear winner and "wandering ascetic" was accepted as the most notable aspect.

Please think of a many common Wikipedia users, who come to Wikipedia page to get a very brief information on Buddha, and are likely to get confused with "wandering ascetic" aspect and lose focus on Buddha being a religious teacher and founder of Buddhism.

Also, there is problem is Translation. I have myself studied Pali language, and find this translation very problemetic especially in the opening sentence. Many scholars will not agree that "wandering ascetic" is that correct translation for Śramaṇa spritual tradition /path.

Also, "Wandering" in English has a tone and sense of being lost, which is clearly not the meaning of "Sramana", where the focus is on spiritual goals and spiritual seeking; hence, "wandering" does not make for a good translation.

A better translation for Śramaṇa, used by several scholars is a "spiritual ascetic" or "spiritual seeker"

Several scholars also translate Śramaṇa as a "spiritual seeker"

So, I think good options are:

Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha ('the awakened'), was a spiritual seeker, religious teacher and the founder of Buddhism who lived in South Asia during the 6th or 5th century BCE.

OR

Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha ('the awakened'), was a spiritual ascetic, religious teacher and the founder of Buddhism who lived in South Asia during the 6th or 5th century BCE.

RogerYg (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

RogerYg, your entire argument is a non-starter; please read up on basic elements of Wikipedia articles such as Notability and Verifiability, two very different concepts. For one thing, WP:Notability is about topics and not about articles; that is number one. In particular, notability is a threshold which describes whether a given topic deserves to have an article or not. Once that question is answered in the affirmative, Notability has absolutely zero to do with the content or development of the article. Claiming that any given part of the article, whether the lead, or the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE or anything else has to be "notable" is just nonsense. In fact, the Notability policy specifically rejecs this notion in the Nutshell box at the top:

"The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles."

and then lower down there is a whole section entitled, § Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists that underlines it again in more detail. So, you can just forget about the idea that notability has anything to do with the lead sentence—it does not.

Secondly, what goes into the lead sentence is described by MOS:LEADSENTENCE (guideline), which starts out:

"The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where."

Reasonable people can disagree reasonably about what are the most salient points to include in the lead sentence, but stating that the Buddha was a "wandering ascetic" cannot be denied, and in my view is a defining characteristic of the Buddha and his life. You may reasonably argue against it, but appealing to Notability is irrelevant. Also, the idea that "wandering" has connotations of "lost" are idiosyncratic imho; that is not what it means to most native speakers (it's more like "aimless", or "no fixed goal", but not "lost"). In conclusion, the proposal inherent in your section title "Lead Sentence needs to focus on 'Notable' aspects" is contrary both to Wikipedia's policy on WP:Notability, as well as Wikipedia's guideline on the WP:LEADSENTENCE, leaving your proposal without a leg to stand on. Mathglot (talk) 08:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Mathglot for your insightful views. We had already discussed the confusion about Notable and Notability, and we are no longer discussing Notability, but about the Notable aspects as per Wikipedia's guideline on the WP:LEADSENTENCE. We need discuss in good failth as per WP:TALK, rather than giving one-sided conclusions. Thanks again for the discussion.

My main argument is regarding Wikipedia policy for First Sentence: "what is notable" for the first sentence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section_TT_first_sentence_content

The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?

I never disputed that Buddha was a wanderig ascetic. Of course, he was . But is "wandering ascetic" the top notable aspect about Buddha?

As Wiki editors, we need to understand that Wikipedia has broad readership, including both native and non-native English speakers, who are likely to get confused with "wandering ascetic" aspect and lose focus on Buddha being a religious teacher and founder of Buddhism.

Also, there is problem is Translation. I have myself studied Pali language, and find this translation very problemetic especially in the opening sentence. Many scholars will not agree that "wandering ascetic" is that correct translation for Śramaṇa spritual tradition /path.

As mentioned by Mathglot "wandering" to most native speakers "(it's more like "aimless", or "no fixed goal", but not "lost")."

As anyone, with some knowledge of "Sramana" knows, it is not at all : "aimless", or "no fixed goal"; rather, it's about a spritual pratice focussed and aiming towards spritual goals.

A better broader translation for Śramaṇa, used by several scholars is a "spiritual ascetic" or "spiritual seeker"

Several scholars also translate Śramaṇa as a "spiritual seeker"

So again , I think better options are:

Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha ('the awakened'), was a spiritual seeker, religious teacher and the founder of Buddhism who lived in South Asia during the 6th or 5th century BCE.

OR

Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha ('the awakened'), was a spiritual ascetic, religious teacher and the founder of Buddhism who lived in South Asia during the 6th or 5th century BCE.

RogerYg (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your claim about two questions to be answered at the top:

The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"

'Yes' to the first, and a big 'No' to the second. The article is presumed notable due to the fact that an article exists. (If you disagree that it is notable, the proper venue is WP:AFD, not the lead sentence of the article.) I presume you have not the slightest doubt about the notability of the topic, but I'm here to tell you that the lead sentence is not about demonstrating notability. I realize that you are still relatively new here; please spend some time with the policies and guidelines about these key issues. As for your other points about "Sramana" and everything else, feel free to take that up as to whether it belongs or doesn't in the lead sentence, but please just stop referring to Notability here, which plays absolutely no role in it. I find that I am repeating myself, and that means it's time for me to bow out. I'll leave you to the wonderful folks here, who may be better suited than I to deal with your other arguments about content of the lead.

(P.S. Your indentation is all over the place, which makes it hard to see who or what you are responding to, and which part is your message and which may be someone else. Please see WP:THREAD and follow the recommendations there.) Best, Mathglot (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I'll concede that in some marginal cases the lede might be used to help address issues of relative notability. That's not an issue here, where it's clear the subject meets many criteria for inclusion. I agree with the assertions of User:Mathglot and urge User:RogerYg to find some other aspect of this article which needs improvement. I'll also agree with Mathglot that the non-standard indentation makes points harder to follow in this discussion. BusterD (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Joshua Jonathan: All of this said, I'm not sure your earlier tweak was especially beneficial. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a few duplicate terms. The first paragraph is something of a microcosm of the rest of the lead. By contrast, tweaking the terms purely to eliminate duplication in the diction can yield pitfalls. I'm not convinced by "seeker" as a term that necessarily conveys much meaning to the lay reader. Also, "homeless" is not a word that to me conveys any of the right connotations. Homelessness is usually non-elective and quite involuntary, which is quite the opposite meaning of a vocational ascetic. I'm not even sure if it's accurate: is it fact that the former prince had no palace to go back to and call home had he so wished? Eschewing a home is not the same as not having one. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  Agree with Iskandar323 regarding "homeless" which was a very poor mistranslation. Thanks Joshua Jonathan: for reverting that.

  Meanwhile, we need to discuss several more mistranslations and duplicates, including "wandering ascetic" in the lede.

  As mentioned by Mathglot "wandering" to most native speakers : "it's more like "aimless", or "no fixed goal", which is not the correct tone & translation for Śramaṇa

  RogerYg (talk) 08:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  Since "wandering ascetic" is mentioned in the second sentence, there is no need to duplicate it in the first sentence, especially as we have noted issues about mistranslation and notable aspects.

  Therefore, based on the points discussed, a good option for the lede can be:

  Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha ('the awakened'), was a religious teacher and the founder of Buddhism who lived in South Asia during the 6th or 5th century BCE. RogerYg (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  While you or anyone is welcome to propose improvements to the WP:LEADSENTENCE as well as to any part of the article, please be aware of WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, and of the fact that it is a common newbie conceit to head straight for the lead sentence to propose changes, and to ignore pretty much everything else. The article has approximately 12,000 words, and the WP:LEADSENTENCE has eleven words, so, 1/1000th of the article. Given the number of words expended already in this discussion section, that seems highly disproportionate to me.

  Secondly: you have mentioned "the correct tone & translation for Śramaṇa", but this is English Wikipedia, and it is not our role to discuss what is the "correct" translation for this or that term from another language. Rather, we rely on what the reliable sources *in English* have to say about this point, and we do not substitute our own opinions about this for what the sources say. If you wish to discuss the meaning of Śramaṇa, please confine your comments to what reliable English sources have to say about this; it is not up for debate among Wikipedia editors to opine about this based on private study or knowledge. If you wish to expound on the topic based on your own knowledge about the topic, please write it up and publish it at Medium or Substack, but not at Wikipedia. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Mathglot for the informative comments. I agree with most of your suggestions such as we should discuss the meaning of Śramaṇa, mainly from reliable English sources and editors should avoid "our own opinions about this ".

  RogerYg (talk) 06:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'd like to propose a slight modification of the lead actually, and add the name "Śākyamuni." I believe it's fair to include this title, as it is a very common name for Gautama Buddha, used primarily in Mahayana tradition and by Buddhists of East Asian heritage. So the lead would read something like:

  Siddhartha Gautama, commonly known as Śākyamuni or most commonly as simply the Buddha ('the awakened'), ...

  I'm open to suggestions on how to better word this or if it should be placed in another section of the lead. Invokingvajras (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

parinirvana translation

Parinirvana is a complex concept in Buddhism. In the first paragraph, it has been translated as "Complete extinction", without sufficient sources to support such translation.

I note that 1 source, The Buddha: A Beginner's guide by John Strong, which is more like "Buddhism for Dummies" translates parinirvana as "Complete extinction"

But, more respected sources, such as Gethin, Rupert (1998), Foundations of Buddhism, Oxford University Press

mentions parinirvana as "physical and mental phenomena that constitute a being cease to occur."

"Modern Buddhist usage tends to restrict 'nirvāṇa' to the awakening experience and reserve 'parinirvāṇa' for the death experience."

Guang Xing, The Concept of the Buddha: Its Evolution from Early Buddhism to the Trikaya, RoutledgeCurzon, Oxford, 2005, p. 89

notes the Mahayanists of the Nirvana Sutra understand the "mahaparinirvana to be the liberated Self of the eternal Buddha"

"One of the main themes of the MMPS [Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra] is that the Buddha is eternal ... The Mahayanists assert the eternity of the Buddha in two ways in the MMPS. They state that the Buddha is the dharmakaya, and hence eternal. Next, they reinterpret the liberation of the Buddha as mahaparinirvana possessing four attributes: eternity, happiness, self and purity.

Only in Mahaparinirvana is this True Self held to be fully discernible and accessible"

Further, Sager Qu in his book, Lord Buddha: The Universal Emperor by Sager Qu

translates parinirvana as "the final deathless state"

Based on these sources, better translation will be ""final liberation" or "final liberation from being" or "the final deathless state"

RogerYg (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Based on the sources, such as Guang Xing, Gethin, and Paul Williams, the more appropriate & brief translation from the sources is "eternal liberation"

Guang Xing, ''The Concept of the Buddha: Its Evolution from Early Buddhism to the Trikaya'', RoutledgeCurzon, Oxford, 2005, p. 89</ref> "They state that the Buddha is the ''dharmakaya'', and hence eternal. Next, they reinterpret the liberation of the Buddha as ''mahaparinirvana'' possessing four attributes: eternity, happiness, self and purity."

RogerYg (talk) 05:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

With more emphasis on widely accepted Gethin source, more appropriate is "final liberation", instead of "eternal liberation", eternal concept is primarily from some Mahayana sources RogerYg (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I think tou put too much emphais on one specific Mahayana understanding. This edit unclear; it added:

Parinirvana is widely considered a state free from the cycle of re-birth when there will be no new being or person; and instead of being reborn, the five aggregates of physical and mental phenomena that constitute a being cease to occur. According to some scholars of the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, the Buddha taught that parinirvāṇa is the realm of "Eternal bliss". Scholar Guang Xing notes that Mahayanists understand the mahaparinirvana to be the liberated Self of the eternal Buddha.

One of the main themes of the [Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra] is that the Buddha is the Dharmakaya, and hence Eternal. and the final liberation of the Buddha, the mahaparinirvana has four attributes: Eternity, Happiness, Self and Purity.

References

• Gethin (1998)(The Foundations of Buddhism) p.76 does not state something akin to "widely considered," nor does he use the term "state" ("state" is an eternalist stance...). Gethin also doesn't state that "the five aggregates of physical and mental phenomena" are reborn. What Gethin doe state is that "Instead of being reborn, the person 'parinirvana-s', meaning in this context that the five aggregates of physical and mental phenomena that constitute a being cease to occur"; the aggregates don't occur again.
• Eternal bliss: Gethin (1989) p.98-99 does not mention the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra.
• Guang Xing does not refer to "mahayanists," but to the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra.

Note that the section where you added this is about the Buddha's (sipoosed) biography, not Mahayana Buddhism or the essentialist tendencies of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, on which Gethin has very things to say. "Eternal liberation" is certainly not an appropriate translation, as it is specific for only one text, not for all of Mahayana Buddhism, even less for Theravada. "Final liberation" is better. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, lets keep final liberation, instead of final nirvana, to avoid being tautological with nirvana, and for better WP:Readability.

Further, the additions were in the parinirvana section, and we can debate later, whether they are better placed in the Mahayana section. Also, regarding "widely considered," , I meant in general Gethin (1998)(The Foundations of Buddhism) is a widely accepted source, while I agree Guang Xing is a specific Mahayana interpretation. RogerYg (talk) 07:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Since no one has provided any objection or arguments against final liberation, and the changing final nirvana, is need to avoid being tautological with nirvana, and for better WP:Readability, therefore this change is made. RogerYg (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Buswell & Lopez (2014), The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, p.1544:

"s su my a ngan las ’das pa; C. banniepan; J. hatsunehan; K. pany ŏlban 般涅槃). In Sanskrit, “final nirvāṇa” or “complete nirvāṇa,” the final passage into NIRVĀṆA upon the death of a buddha or an ARHAT.

• Bikkhu Bodhi, The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A New Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya, p.51:

I translate parinibbana as "final Nibbana," since the noun form usually means the passing away of an arahant (or the Buddha), final release from comnditioned existence; sometimes, however, its meaning is ambigious, as in the statement "the Dhamma [is] taught by the Blessed One for the sake of final Nibbana without clinging (anupadaparinibbanattham) (IV 48, 78), which can mean either Nibbana during full life or the full cessation of existence.

And.... K. R. Norman (2005), A philological approach to Buddhism, p.14, explains that, while the term is used in connection to the Buddha's death, it is also used for living arahats, and therefor cannot mean "final nirvana." What it should be, them does he not explain, unfortunately... Note that Gethin also explains that parinirvana is kind of a verb: " the person 'parinirvāṇa-s'." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I agree "final release from conditioned existence" is a reasonably good translation, supported by relevant sources. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Capitalization in Lead

In the third paragraph, "his teachings" should be changed to "His teachings" because "His" is the first word in the sentence. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Done; thanks. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

South Asia

@Divinemomentever: South Asia is a neutral term. This has been discussed several times before; dropping sources, without further discussion, or simply reverting, won't help here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey Joshua, thanks for your elaboration. However, I don’t get it when you say south Asian is a neutral term. It is not. Indian subcontinent, which refers to a geographical feature, is the neutral term. For example, South Asia includes Afghanistan. Do you suggest that really Afghanistan was related to the birth place of the Buddha? Besides, South Asia is definitely a political term, coined recently, just look at the history of such term.

it is like we call European civilization a “west Asian” civilization since west Asia is a more neutral term than Europe which is technically a peninsula of Asia.

Are you suggesting that there was the so called “South Asia” at the time of lord Buddha? Don’t you think it contradicts all the documents and archeological evidence that India (Indus, Hindus, Bharat) was written in documents regarding the land of lord Buddha?

How can you claim that Chinese monks referred to the Buddha’s place of birth as “South Asia”?

With due respect, whether you intentionally want to use the so-called South Asia to demote Indian civilization, or you just do not know how politically charged such the former is. Divinemomentever (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTADVOCACY. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed: 2016–17 California textbook controversy over South Asian topics#India and South Asia. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Just one example of previous discussions here. An overview here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

[1] Neutral term: South Asia#Name:

According to historians Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal, the Indian subcontinent has come to be known as South Asia "in more recent and neutral parlance". Indologist Ronald B. Inden argues that the usage of the term South Asia is becoming more widespread since it clearly distinguishes the region from East Asia. While South Asia, a more accurate term that reflects the region's contemporary political demarcations, is replacing the Indian subcontinent, a term closely linked to the region's colonial heritage, as a cover term, the latter is still widely used in typological studies.

References

[2] Afghanistan: is Tamil Nadu related to the birth place of the Buddha? Why not call it Nepal, or "lived in the Ganges plain"?

[3] “west Asian” civilization: go ahead, propose a name change for "Europe" and all related articles;

Ancient kingdoms and cities of India during the time of the Buddha (c. 500 BCE)

[4] “South Asia” at the time of lord Buddha: it seems to me that, during his lifetime, wandered the kingdoms of Kosala, Kasi and Maghada, among others; what does Tamil Nadu have to do with it?

[5] Chinese monks: the Chinese called India Tianzhu, "five Indias," referring to five regions;

[6] "demote Indian civilization" - ah, there we are;

[7] "politically charged such the former [South Asia] is: obviously you're ignorant of the political bagage of the term "India."

I hope you're done now with your rhetorics, and come with some real arguments. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

well, let's call Europe from now on "Western Eurasian".

I checked this guy, Jazzmand, he is blocked now. Apparently he had a Hinduphobic and Anti-Indian agenda. From when, India is a name given by British!? the last time I checked, it comes from the Sindhu, i.e. river. Clearly, demoting Ancient India by replacing it with non-historical invented term, South Asia, is due to anti-India and Hinduphobia. Aparently, Indians are the new Jews. Such non-historical name changing smacks of racism and hinduphobic as well as anti-semiticism. Divinemomentever (talk) 11:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, India is a bastardised form of Sindhu believed to derive from the classical Greek period, when it was used in reference to the Indus valley. The extension of the name to the whole subcontinent is ofc an ironic misnomer and one that would also be anachronistic in the context of the Buddha – just as much as as any modern geographic nomenclature, so that is a highly moot point. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Tianzhu, "five India", wrong! It means five rivers as India means Sindhu or river! Man, the British did not even existed when India was India! I don't get how Chinese and antisemitic propaganda try to hijack the term India and you are supporting such baseless claim! Let's call China as the middle kingdom since China is also an Indian name, from Chin in Sanskrit! You are promoting Hinduphobia. Divinemomentever (talk) 11:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Shall we get back on topic? You gave one good argument: what term do WP:RS use? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Random inferences about propagandistic influences are not advancing your point. They're also bizarre. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Tianzhu (天竺) itself has nothing to do with "five", which arises only in Wutianzhu (五天竺).

zhu (竺) here is almost certainly a transliteration of *dhu from Sanskrit, so while in a certain sense it could be construed as having connotions towards "river" when back-translated, in any reasonable sense it's a toponym when used in this and related terms (竺國 etc). I have no reason to doubt the claim in Cheung 2014 p.179 n.284 that the 五 (five) here refers to "regions" rather than "rivers". Folly Mox (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Divinemomentever: may I remind you that you still haven't gained consensus for "Indian subcontinent"? It seems that you don't understand how Wikipedia works... Calling my reverts "disruptive" is not helpfull either. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Dear friend Joshua, I looked at WP: consensus and there is consensus on usage of both South Asia and Indian subcontinent, both featuring geographical terms. I suggest you to review the consensus to find hundreds of such examples. Just search Sikhism in WP to see it. Divinemomentever (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

No there isn't. The term "South Asia" has been used at this page for more than two years; two editors are opposing now "Indian subcontinent." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, South Asia is the WP:NPOV socio-cultural-political-historical term. "Indian subcontinent" should not be used outside of strictly geophysical contexts. Thus in Kashmir we do use "Indian subcontinent." But in Indus Valley Civilisation, the Maurya Empire, or the Mughal Empire, we do not. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, "Indian subcontinent" references what became "India" during the British Raj. That geography was created by the British by conquests and subsidiary alliances, mapped by the British in Great Trigonometric Survey, and given sovereignty by the British as a result of treaties and representation in international venues, such as the Olympics or the League of Nations. The "India" of the "Indian subcontinent" is no longer around. There is no reason to create linguistic ambiguity by letting people interpret it to be about the Republic of India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Vishnu

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

Which other religions then venerate him? Neo-Vedantins consider him to be an awakened one, relevant for Hinduism. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya sect of Islam for starters. Ratnahastin (talk) 05:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Use the Sri Lanka Convention Dates

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

Let's use these dates here.

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

We use scholarly consensus, not primary sources. Skyerise (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

These are obviously scholarly secondary sources, inevitably based on primary ones. But whether these dates represent the full spectrum of scholarship, I don't know. Johnbod (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Why would we "use" those dates? We're supposed to give an overview of the relevant scholarly sources, not pick a religious dating. Joshua Mark is not a "serious scholar." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)