The Life of Buddha

@jkrishna7, that time Nepal was known as "Kiratdesh". The term Nepal came to exist only from 4th B.C.
Kiratdesh(Nepal) was never part of Bharat(India).

So stop claiming Buddha was born in India.

because it was part of one of the Indian empires.

how can it be part of India when there was no India?

When the Buddha was born, his birthplace was at that time, part of India. Also, in the sutras where the Buddha is described, he does not have dark skin. At any rate, it doesn't really matter what color his skin was, his teachings are most important. Regarding Buddhism as a religion, yes or no; doesn't matter. For some it is, for others it is not. Doesn't matter, following the core teachings matters most.

Well if you look at Indian cultural beliefs they believed that people of higher birth had light golden skin and were attractive. And if you look at the oldest Buddhist texts you will note that he was very well received by virtually every royal family in the areas he taught, one king begged him to leave the ascetic life and marry his daughter. so when you consider this it becomes very likely he was light skinned and attractive, and Nepali's have lighter skin than Indians.

Buddhism is not a religion is a way of life for enlightenment and nirvana. Buddha didnt teach religion. Jesus didnt teach religion either, men make religion,the controling people of others make religion. The Buddhist practitioner clearly says this, and I Quote: " Buddhism is not a religion"

When we die, we can't bring our country along. Just because you're not a Buddhist, it does not mean that kamma wouldn't work on you.

The truth is kamma is universal. It has no boundaries.

Yes, the treaty was unfair. Everyone knows that. I don't know what they teach in Indian schools.

Buddha is an Indian prince. No one can deny this

Buddha is a state of being, our inner nature. Siddhartha Gautama was and Indian prince.