Gautama Buddha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So is Gautama Buddha an Indian or Nepali or something else?
Gautama Buddha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So is Gautama Buddha an Indian or Nepali or something else?
Joined Oct 2012
3,562 Posts | 807+
Z
Siddhartha Gautama would not have considered himself to be either, because there was no political entity called "Nepal" when he was alive, nor was there any political entity called "India". He was a Shakya by political/tribal affiliation and that is what he called himself, and what his followers called him by (hence the term "Shakyamuni").
Calling Buddha a Nepali is like calling Jesus a Palestinian.
Calling Buddha a Nepali is like calling Jesus a Palestinian.
Joined Mar 2012
3,474 Posts | 22+
Redneck Country, AKA Texas
I agree. His nationality is not important, because these countries did not exist during that time period.
Joined Mar 2013
15,541 Posts | 714+
India
impossible to tell. We have only literary descriptions, and most of those are well after the death of Buddha. He could have been green for all we know
Joined Aug 2014
5,549 Posts | 582+
India
Last edited:
Buddha was Indian, not by sense of Republic of India's boundary, but because he was born in Indian civilization. There were 16 Majanpadas(cities). Nepal's separate history started much later.
There was no Nepal then, neither India. 16 Mahajanpadas were spread beyond of modern boundaries, but it is accepted they were all part of Indian civilization. Thus Buddha was Indian.
There was no Nepal then, neither India. 16 Mahajanpadas were spread beyond of modern boundaries, but it is accepted they were all part of Indian civilization. Thus Buddha was Indian.
Joined May 2011
2,740 Posts | 277+
Sweden
I suppose the term Indic is better to use than as it takes away any confusion. Similarly a Pashtun isnt Iranian, he is Iranic.
Buddha was an Arya and Bhartvarshi 
Could we also use the word "Hindustani" as he was from Sapta-Sindhu?
He was not from the "nation" of India, but he was certainly from the civilization of India.
Could we also use the word "Hindustani" as he was from Sapta-Sindhu?
He was not from the "nation" of India, but he was certainly from the civilization of India.
Joined Oct 2014
5 Posts | 0+
Canada
His birth place is present day Nepal and not India.
Of course, both countries didn't exist during his time.
Of course, both countries didn't exist during his time.
Joined Jul 2014
2,556 Posts | 558+
world
Lord Buddha was born in Kapilvastu which is located in Nepals terrai region which even to this date has huge huge number of Indians . They speak in a hindi dialect and look like Indians .terrai region is new addition to the Nepal because of shah dynasty expansion in the 18th century. So I think Lord Buddha was a Nepali of Indian origin.
Joined Mar 2013
15,541 Posts | 714+
India
Are you sure about that? As per your logic, India is a direct continuation of the Indic civilization so Buddha is Indian right? But then wouldn't Saudi Arabia be the continuation of the Arabic Culture and Islam which Muhammad founded? So why wouldn't he be Saudi Arabian, especially since Mecca and Medina are both in Saudi Arabia?
Joined Mar 2011
3,342 Posts | 20+
dragon's area
Joined Aug 2014
5,549 Posts | 582+
India
Historically Indian civilization was in these countries- India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Nepal. Now meanwhile Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh are Muslim, Nepal made their own identity. So only India is left.
Saudi Arabia cant be only continuation of Muslim Arabic culture that Prophet Muhammad founded because Muslim Arabic culture is prevalent not only in Saudi Arabia, but also in Iraq, Yemen, Syria like these, these countries are no way less Arab than Saudi Arabia. Unlike Pakistan, Afghanistan who cut ties with their historical bondage with India, Iraq, Syria, Jordan have not cut their ties to their Arabic root.
This is nonsense. Only certain parts of Nepal has Indian influence.
The northern parts of Nepal are Tibetan-Burmese related people.
Joined Mar 2013
15,541 Posts | 714+
India
Nepal didn't make their own identity. The Hindu Neaplis are as Indian from a historical point of view as India itself. The religion prevalent in India is very different from Buddha's time, and is as much a direct continuation of that culture as the Nepali culture is. Nepal as not "cut roots" with its Indian culture.
Joined Aug 2014
5,549 Posts | 582+
India
Last edited:
No, do Nepalese people consider themselves Indian even culturally? Let along politically referring as Indian as India and Nepal are different. But an average Iraqi is as much Arab as an average Saudi Arabian is. But we are foreigner to Nepalese and so they are to us. As Nepal we generally understand mountainous area, but Nepal is not only that, it had some plains too, which were much later incorporated into Nepal.
Did any Indian kingdom or dynasty ever ruled Nepal apart from raids by Bengal's Muslim powers?
The religion that was prevalent during Buddha's time, was surely different, but a religion is bound to be changed, even Buddha's own teaching is changed. From a social reformer he has been changed to a God.
More History Discussions
- Poll
Trending History Discussions
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 7- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 861
-
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 5
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 3K
-
The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread- Started by Kilwa Sultanate
- Replies: 2K
-