Story of the birth of Buddha


Well-Known Member
Reaction score
Interestingly miraculous events occurred during the birth of Buddha, would anyone care to tell me or link me to the stroy?
Hello Postmaster

The story of the Buddha's birth can differ greatly from those who tell it. The main idea is this.
It has been said the Buddha was born Lumbini (what is now Nepal) between 400 and 480 B.C.E., as Siddhartha Gautama. His mother, Mahamaya, was said to experience a dream while she carried Siddhartha in which a large white elephant entered her side. The Indian Bhahmins interpreted this to be a sign saying that Siddhartha would either become a powerful leader or a great sage.
It is said that on the day of his birth, Mahamaya was on her way to visit her relatives when she gave birth standing up. As she leaned on a tree, Siddhartha came out of his mother's side and Mahamaya experienced no pain.
As soon as Siddhartha was born, he stood up, took seven steps and announced, "I am here to free the world. This is my last birth; now I will not be born again." Many interpret what he says differently, but it is mainly the same message. It is also said that his mother died a week after giving birth, and the Buddha was raised by Mahamaya's sister, Mahapajapati.
That is what I know from my studies, I hope it helped! :)
Namaste Postmaster,

this may be of some value:

About ten months after her dream of a white elephant and the sign that she would give birth to a great leader, Queen Maya was expecting her child. One day she went to the king and said, "My dear, I have to go back to my parents. My baby is almost due." Since it was the custom in India for a wife to have her baby in her father's house, the king agreed, saying, "Very well, I will make the necessary arrangements for you to go."

The king then sent soldiers ahead to clear the road and prepared others to guard the queen as she was carried in a decorated palanquin. The queen left Kapilavatthu in a long procession of soldiers and retainers, headed for the capital of her father's kingdom.

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]On the way to the Koliya country, the great procession passed a garden called Lumbini Park. This garden was near the kingdom called Nepal, at the foot of the Himalayan mountains. The beautiful park with its sala trees and scented flowers and busy birds and bees attracted the queen. Since the park was a good resting place, the queen ordered the bearers to stop for a while. As she rested underneath one of the sala trees, her birth began and a baby boy was born. It was an auspicious day. The birth took place on a full moon (which is now celebrated as Vesak, the festival of the triple event of Buddha's birth, enlightenment and death), in the year 623 B.C.[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]According to the legends about this birth, the baby began to walk seven steps forward and at each step a lotus flower appeared on the ground. Then, at the seventh stride, he stopped and with a noble voice shouted:[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"I am chief of the world,[/font]​
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Eldest am I in the world,

Foremost am I in the world.​
This is the last birth.​
There is now no more coming to be."​
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]After the birth of her baby son, Queen Maha Maya immediately returned to Kapilavatthu. When the king learnt of this he was very happy, and as news of the birth of the long-awaited heir spread around the kingdom there was rejoicing all over the country.[/font]

Anyone that has questions about Buddhism should definatly check out that website that Vajradhara had posted ( When I became a Buddhist, that website answered many of my questions about the basic concepts and many misconceptions that westerners have about Buddhism.
Very interesting thank you all for your information. I've always been fond of Buddhism as I was growing up. I did do reading on Buddhism and was even aware of this story of his birth but since it was so long ago I just wanted to be clarified.

Does anyone know how Hindus feel towards Buddhism, do they consider Siddhartha Gautama as a heretic?
What are the general perceived views on the birth legends within Buddhism? I can't help but wonder how much is written to serve specific cultural purposes. Or is the issue of birth miracles often even irrelevant within Buddhism? Or are they ultimately necessary to prove the nature of the Buddha?
Namaste all,

that's a good question Brian.

from my point of view, i would venture to say that there is some value in the miracle stories in Buddhism.. however, the Buddha explained that of all the various miracles and so forth that he and other accomplished Buddhists had done, only one of them was worthy. that was the miracle of being able to teach the Dharma. all the other things are, essentially, not relevant.

remember the idea within Buddhism of addressing the various needs and capacities of sentient beings. as such, there are some beings that will draw inspiration and strength from miracles and that sort of thing. as a consequence, it should not really be all that surprising to find within the Buddha Dharma, itself, a wide range of views and understandings of the issue.

Buddhism isn't about properly formulated belief statements :)
Postmaster said:
Does anyone know how Hindus feel towards Buddhism, do they consider Siddhartha Gautama as a heretic?
I'm not sure that they consider him heretic...maybe around in the early days of Buddhism when many Hindus were converting to Buddhism, which may have seemed somewhat threatening to Hindus at the time...

I do believe some Hindus see the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, the ninth avatar, after Krishna but before Kalki, the one who has not yet been incarnated (it would be easier if an actual Hindu answered this, I'm not really an expert on the subject).

Balarama is the ninth avatar according to Puranic tradition. However, with the increase in popularity of Buddhism in India, some time in the latter half of the first millennium A.D, a belief that Buddha is the ninth avatar gained prominence. (This is an example of the remarkable ability of Hinduism to assimilate other ideas and cultures; it ultimately contributed to the decline of Buddhism in India.) Buddha is therefore often referred to as Buddhadev ("Divine Buddha") by many Hindus. Buddhists, however, do not consider Buddha to be an avatar. A prominent contemporary Hindu thinker who considered Buddha an avatar was Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan. On the other hand, followers of Dvaita, in particular, do not consider Buddha to be an avatar as he preached heterorthodox views (i.e., rejecting the Vedas, etc.) but instead accord Balarama the designation. Balarama, among the ten avatars, is different from other avatars as he is an incarnation of Vishnu's serpent Adi Sesha rather than of Vishnu himself.
Those who believe that Buddha is the ninth avatar say this:

With the departure of Lord Krihsna (Krishna Avatar), the age of Kali set in, in this age, the true devotion to vedas was replaced by empty rituals. To enlighten the world in such times, Lord Vishnu descended the earth as Buddha, the enlightened one.
Last edited:
A bit off topic, but I found this very interesting:

Many claim that the ten avatars represent the development of life and of mankind. Matsya, the fish, represents life in water. Kurma, the tortoise, represents the next stage, amphibianism. The third animal, the boar Varaha, symbolizes life on land. Narasimha, the Man-Lion, symbolizes the commencement development of man. Vamana, the dwarf, symbolizes this incomplete development. Then, Parashurama, the forest-dweller, connotes completion of the basic development of humankind. The King Rama signals man's ability to govern nations. Krishna, an expert in the sixty-four fields of science and art according to Hinduism, indicates man's advancement to cultural concerns. Buddha, the Enlightened one, symbolizes the enlightenment and spiritual advancement of man. Note that the time of the avatars does not necessarily indicate much; kings ruled long before Rama and science was pursued long before Krishna. The avatars represent the order, and not the time, of these occurrences, according to certain Hindus. The animal development connotations bear striking resemblances to the theory of Evolution.
Same site
Is the story of Buddha's birth--him coming out of the side of Momma Maya, striding forward and proclaiming what seems to be a very non-Buddhist, egocentric and even egotistical statement ([font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"I am chief of the world, [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Eldest am I in the world, Foremost am I in the world...")[/font]--generally considered fact or embellished myth by Buddhists?

I guess I am kind of asking the same question that Brian asked, and so expect a similar answer from Vajradhara--that it depends on the particular Buddhist tradition and ultimately is irrelevant (I think that's what he was saying in a nutshell). Maybe I'm wondering if there are certain sects of Buddhism that really place a lot of emphasis and value on this story that seems on par with the immaculate conception in Christianity.
I am a Buddhist and I personally do not believe this story at all. The main reason being that it makes no sense to me. I believe that Siddartha Gautama achieved enlightenment because he was seeking for a cure to all humanity's suffering, not through some intrinsic greatness with which he was born.

Also, the part of the story (which I've not heard before) about him being born through his mother's side and her dying shortly afterwards sounds to me like a time-twisted story of a cesarean section(spelling?).

I turned to Budhism originally because I belived that we can all be much greater than what we are now, i.e we can emulate Gautama and become enlightened. But if our enlightenment is dependant on a glorious miracle at birth then basically, Im screwed, because I didnt have that.

I think that all spiritual people of any faith cannot avoid the unshakeable truth that in the hundreds or thousands of years since the birth of the big religions, there has been a lot of "chinese whispers". Also, I dont think any religion has not been used by some government at some point in history as a tool for social control. To ignore this is to become a fundamentalist.
Like all good myths, its meaning is not in its wording but where those symbols "take" you when you read them.

Reading myth literally is like reading a menu entry for "lasagna" and eating the menu.

The lasagna tastes much better.
Abogado del Diablo said:
The lasagna tastes much better.
and... let's face it... Lasagna goes better with garlic bread.

in the end... i happen to think that this, and the other miracles and so forth, are matters of personal instruction and view.