Buddha

   

-Buddha History And Philosophy Discussion Corner- (Page 6)

Post Reply New Post

Page 6 of 8

Page 1 Page 5
Page   of 8
Page 7 Page 8

-Shani-

IF-Dazzler

-Shani-

Joined: 09 July 2013

Posts: 4562

Posted: 25 October 2013 at 12:05pm | IP Logged
Why do most of us say "Buddha was born in Nepal"?? Don't get me wrong, I'm not disputing his birthplace. The only problem is that, technically speaking, this statement is wrong. Buddha WASN'T "born" anywhere. It is Prince Siddhartha Gautama who was born in Nepal. Siddhartha Gautama did NOT become The Buddha immediately after birth. 

And, if you really have to talk about Buddha's "birth", it is actually Siddhartha's enlightenment, after which he became known as The Buddha. This glorious event happened in Bodh Gaya, Bihar, India. I presume you've all heard of the Mahabodhi Temple, right?

I honestly don't understand why some people get so egoistically possessive about Siddhartha's birthplace. Yes, I am aware that many people still make the mistake of saying that he was born in India. But why feel so egoistic about the whole thing that you actually get "offended", if someone mistakenly says that he was born in India? I mean, Buddha's teachings are for the "entire world", and not just "restricted" for the country where he was born as Siddhartha. 

I wonder if Siddhartha himself really cared about where he was born. And I wonder how Siddhartha himself would react if he came to know that arguments actually occur over his birthplace...

By making his birthplace an ego issue of sorts, we are basically displaying our own narrow mindset that we cannot escape from the shackles of regionalism. 

Siddhartha Gautama was born in Nepal, and he became The Buddha in India.

See - BOTH countries get credit, if that is what people argue about so much.

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "-Buddha History And Philosophy Discussion Corner- (Page 6)" in Buddha forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

-Shani-

IF-Dazzler

-Shani-

Joined: 09 July 2013

Posts: 4562

Posted: 25 October 2013 at 12:07pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by .Vrish.

I have a couple of questions about Siddharth
  • When his father confronted him about his duties to succeed him, why didn't he ask his son Rahul to take on the succession, instead of admitting him & Yashodhara into the Sangha?
  • Didn't Devadatta have any desires for the Kapilavastu throne?  Once Siddharth had vacated it, why didn't he simply stake his claim and try and win it for himself?
  • What happened to Kapilavastu (in terms of succession) after Suddhoyana died?
On a different note, if this show is authentic in terms of story, I hope it gets translated into other languages whose speakers are Buddhist - Tibetan, Sinhala, Burmese/Myanmarese, Thai, Cambodian, Vietnamese, maybe even Korean.

Didn't the concept of a "rajarshi" exist in those days? I've read about Rajarshis that they were basically kings ("raja") who ruled their kingdom, but were "spiritually advanced" (rishi"). For example, Raja Janak. 

The main reason I'm asking this question is because I'd like to know why did Siddhartha have to compulsorily renounce the palace in order to search for the meaning of life? I agree that as a child and even as a young adult, he lived an extremely sheltered life and all. 

But couldn't he have become a "rajarshi" instead? He could've achieved his life's purpose AND become a king as well (yes, he would've become the most non-violent king in history). 

Part in bold - As per what I read, Shuddhodhana was extremely upset on hearing of Siddhartha's departure. And, Siddhartha had already become Buddha when Shuddhodhana was on his deathbed. 

But what happened to Kapilvastu after Shuddhodhana died, I don't know.

RoseFairy

IF-Dazzler

RoseFairy

Joined: 24 September 2010

Posts: 4071

Posted: 30 October 2013 at 10:44am | IP Logged
Originally posted by .Vrish.

Originally posted by RoseFairy

there was no country called Nepal but Nepal the word is found in Vedic literature too where its said Nepal is an independent land generally  kathmandu valley was regarded an independent land of Nepal
kapilavastu was on southern Nepal which was a ganarajya and ganarajyas occupied both part of India and southern nepal later southern nepal became part of maurya empire and then gupta empire too so in ancient time there was a difference of kathmandu valley or independent land of nepal and southern nepal or tarain region  latter many time became part of indian empire where former always was independent but its debatable wheather in Buddha's time southern nepl is part of India or not but that time it was sure that there was no boundary between india and southern nepal

But Nepal was more or less pretty isolated from the rest of India - during the Maurya, Gupta, Saka, Kushana and other empires in the Classical Age, while several kingdoms from Gaur to Gandhara interacted w/ each other, there wasn't much w/ Nepal, probably due to the Himalayas and its accessibility.  In fact, Nepal, while not a political entity, was very much a regional entity separate from the rest of Aryavarta - about as much as Lanka was.


kathmandu valley was always independent Nepal it was never part of India but tarain region or southern Nepal many times became part of India

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

navyyataProud-India

Proud-India

IF-Sizzlerz

Proud-India

Joined: 02 January 2013

Posts: 11680

Posted: 30 October 2013 at 11:07pm | IP Logged
Who was king after Suddhodan? Dev vrat or Siddharth's step brother?

Dilli4BALH

Goldie

Dilli4BALH

Joined: 17 December 2011

Posts: 2062

Posted: 26 November 2013 at 4:07pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by shani88

Why do most of us say "Buddha was born in Nepal"?? Don't get me wrong, I'm not disputing his birthplace. The only problem is that, technically speaking, this statement is wrong. Buddha WASN'T "born" anywhere. It is Prince Siddhartha Gautama who was born in Nepal. Siddhartha Gautama did NOT become The Buddha immediately after birth.

And, if you really have to talk about Buddha's "birth", it is actually Siddhartha's enlightenment, after which he became known as The Buddha. This glorious event happened in Bodh Gaya, Bihar, India. I presume you've all heard of the Mahabodhi Temple, right?

I honestly don't understand why some people get so egoistically possessive about Siddhartha's birthplace. Yes, I am aware that many people still make the mistake of saying that he was born in India. But why feel so egoistic about the whole thing that you actually get "offended", if someone mistakenly says that he was born in India? I mean,Buddha's teachings are for the "entire world", and not just "restricted" for the country where he was born as Siddhartha.

I wonder if Siddhartha himself really cared about where he was born. And I wonder how Siddhartha himself would react if he came to know that arguments actually occur over his birthplace...

By making his birthplace an ego issue of sorts, we are basically displaying our own narrow mindset that we cannot escape from the shackles of regionalism.

Siddhartha Gautama was born in Nepal, and he became The Buddha in India.

See - BOTH countries get credit, if that is what people argue about so much.

ha ha.. Ur own comment is so contradictory.. If buddha and Siddhartha is same person then why does people get confused on his birthplace?? for example, Mother Teresa got name Mother Teresa in India after her devoted work.. But u can't say Teresa(sorry don't know her real name so using Teresa only) was born in west Germany but mother Teresa was born in India..
I agree wid u on point abt our concern on his Gyan but not on birthplace.. Our focus should have been on his gyan Ahinsa,Styabachan but what we r doing now?? fighting against eachothers on his birthplace issue and we say we are his follower..


Edited by Dilli4BALH - 26 November 2013 at 4:06pm

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

navyyata

.Vrish.

Viewbie

.Vrish.

Joined: 25 October 2008

Posts: 20863

Posted: 05 January 2014 at 12:23am | IP Logged
I'm glad to see this thread.  My questions will be not about Buddhism, since I'm not a Buddhist, but rather, about Siddhartha's history.

From what I recall - granted, it was from the ACK, Siddhartha & Buddha led 2 very different lives.  Siddhartha's only interactions were with the Sakhyas of Kapilavastu & neighboring Nepali kingdoms.  After he became Buddha, then he started meeting rulers like Bimbisara and Prasenjit, or had followers like Amrapali or Upagupta.

But in this serial, they showed Prasenjit being a guest @ Siddhartha's wedding, and the same for Bimbisara.  But again, from what I recall, Siddhartha first met Bimbisara when he was meditating on life's true meaning.  Bimbisara saw him the first time and asked him what he was up to, and he explained.  Bimbisara asked him to visit him once he did find that out, and Buddha kept his word.

So it is confusing to see post Buddha characters appear in Siddhartha's marriage.  Also, the wedding seemed overdramatized - a scorpion in the garland? Shocked  I genuinely hope that the makers of this serial ain't doing what Swastik productions are doing in Mahabharata and making up the whole story.  Last few weeks, too much of it suspiciously looks like they are.  But I don't know a lot of details about Siddhartha's history, so can't confidently comment.

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

Proud-India

.Vrish.

Viewbie

.Vrish.

Joined: 25 October 2008

Posts: 20863

Posted: 19 January 2014 at 7:35am | IP Logged
Any idea - why did Devadatta want to lead the Sangha, as opposed to just trying to succeed Sudhoyana as the ruler?

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

Proud-India

RoseFairy

IF-Dazzler

RoseFairy

Joined: 24 September 2010

Posts: 4071

Posted: 19 January 2014 at 9:57am | IP Logged
Originally posted by .Vrish.

Any idea - why did Devadatta want to lead the Sangha, as opposed to just trying to succeed Sudhoyana as the ruler?

Because he wanted everything that Buddha got , that was the honor , he wanted people will respect and worship him more than Buddha , kingly pleasure was immaterial in front of Sidharth's achievement because he had become lord then he was ruling people and specially mighty emperors like Bimbisara and Prasenjit's heart , perhaps Devdutta thought Buddha can control the politics of Aryabart now so Devdutta wanted to attain the lordship so that by influencing those rulers he could influence whole Aryabarta and also people worship and respect him

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

.Vrish.Proud-India

Post Reply New Post

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Buddha Topic Index

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.