True or False?
Best Answer gets 10 points!
2006-09-20 03:13:39 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Education & Reference ➔ Homework Help
That would be false... He was actually a prince, so he wasnt untouchable.
Give me the 10 points please!
2006-09-20 03:24:09 · answer #1 · answered by malcam_r 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
False.
According to the Buddhist tradition, the historical Buddha Siddharta Gautama was born to the Shakya clan, at the beginning of the Magadha period (546–324 BCE), in the plains of Lumbini, Southern Nepal. He is also known as the Shakyamuni (literally "The sage of the Shakya clan").
After an early life of luxury under the protection of his father, Åuddhodana, the ruler of Kapilavastu (later to be incorporated into the state of Magadha), Siddharta entered into contact with the realities of the world and concluded that real life was about inescapable suffering and sorrow. Siddharta renounced his meaningless life of luxury to became an ascetic. He ultimately decided that asceticism was also meaningless, and instead chose a middle way, a path of moderation away from the extremes of self-indulgence and self-mortification.
Under a fig tree, now known as the Bodhi tree, he vowed never to leave the position until he found Truth. At the age of 35, he attained Enlightenment. He was then known as Gautama Buddha, or simply "The Buddha", which means "the enlightened one".
For the remaining 45 years of his life, he travelled the Gangetic Plain of central India (region of the Ganges/Ganga river and its tributaries), teaching his doctrine and discipline to an extremely diverse range of people.
The Buddha's reluctance to name a successor or to formalise his doctrine led to the emergence of many movements during the next 400 years: first the schools of Nikaya Buddhism, of which only Theravada remains today, and then the formation of Mahayana, a pan-Buddhist movement based on the acceptance of new scriptures.
2006-09-20 10:20:43 · answer #2 · answered by nfocuz00 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
False,,,,,,,,,,, actually he was born Ksatriya........a ruling class in ancient north india............... he was the only son of a king.......so how could a crown prince revolt against the norms of the society he is going to head....... he was destined to lead people out from misery...........and actually he didn't revolt he just found a new way to look at life and perhaps an even better one
2006-09-20 10:20:05 · answer #3 · answered by bhudepu2 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Far from being an untouchable, he was a Prince, which means he must have been a Brahman. He gave up his wealth and status to seek enlightenment.
2006-09-20 10:21:06 · answer #4 · answered by kreevich 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He wasn't untouhable and was born to a royal family.It wasn't a kneejerk reaction or revolt but a geniuse's thought
2006-09-20 10:22:09 · answer #5 · answered by GUK 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
false,he was born a prince.
2006-09-20 10:22:39 · answer #6 · answered by knu 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Have you been reading Herman Hesse?
2006-09-20 10:16:38 · answer #7 · answered by Ya-sai 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think Alan Watts made him up.
2006-09-20 10:29:18 · answer #8 · answered by lollipop 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. He was a prince. But who knows? It's all propaganda.
2006-09-20 10:23:22 · answer #9 · answered by Raven Fuqfest 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋