Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Who Was the Buddha?

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 176 posts

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#21

Post by QuercusMax »

GuiA wrote: post #4
alexmingoia wrote: post #2

The article is correct in that Buddha being a prince is a myth. The Pali canon (Tripitaka) does not assert he lived in a palace, depending on the translation used. It states he was born in bhavana (Sn. 685) which has in the past been translated as palace but it simply means a place. When Buddha talks about his fathers abode he just refers to a house or mansion or family complex, using the word nivasana (A.I 145) whic…

Interesting. Reminds me of a similar example with Jesus, commonly thought to be a carpenter, but who was really a tektōn (At least according to the Gospel of Mark) which could be translated as carpenter or stonemason. Most houses in Israel at the time would appear to have been made of stone, and therefore stonemason seems like it’d be a more appropriate translation.

Fascinating! That could explain why he gave Simon the name "Peter" (Stone), and references like "The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone" (Matthew 21:42, quoting Psalm 118:22.)

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#23

Post by ggm »

alexmingoia wrote: post #14
ggm wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is correct in that Buddha being a prince is a myth. The use of the word myth in connection with religion always fascinates me. The entire concept of religion generally depends on myths. recursive use of myth in myth. Generally I have to read these sentences as in my opinion because the 'factual' quality of statements regarding the ur-myths of religion is usually not quantifiable, its all contextually defi…

When I say myth, I mean in the sense that it’s not actually supported by the Tripitaka, which is the first complete written account of Buddha’s teachings by a lineage of his original monastic order (mostly confirmed by historical evidence where it exists) to survive as written to the present day, and considered canonical Buddhist teaching. It is most definitely quantifiable whether something is or is not written in t…

So its not supported by the canonical text makes it mythic. Ok, I get it now. Apocryphal.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#25

Post by edgarvaldes »

weberc2 wrote: post #8
GuiA wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. Reminds me of a similar example with Jesus, commonly thought to be a carpenter, but who was really a tektōn (At least according to the Gospel of Mark) which could be translated as carpenter or stonemason. Most houses in Israel at the time would appear to have been made of stone, and therefore stonemason seems like it’d be a more appropriate translation.

I've always been confused by the English definition of "carpenter". I always thought it was originally something like "woodworker" or a furniture smith, but it appears that most native speakers understood "carpenter" to mean "house builder". I wonder if at some time the same occupation referred to both or if I simply grew up misinformed?

> but it appears that most native speakers understood "carpenter" to mean "house builder".

In Latin-America we use a very similar word: "carpintero" with the same origin. But the houses in the region are commonly made of concrete brick, so we don't associate "carpenter" with "house builder".

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#26

Post by chrisweekly »

ggm wrote: post #7
alexmingoia wrote: post #2

The article is correct in that Buddha being a prince is a myth. The Pali canon (Tripitaka) does not assert he lived in a palace, depending on the translation used. It states he was born in bhavana (Sn. 685) which has in the past been translated as palace but it simply means a place. When Buddha talks about his fathers abode he just refers to a house or mansion or family complex, using the word nivasana (A.I 145) whic…

The article is correct in that Buddha being a prince is a myth. The use of the word myth in connection with religion always fascinates me. The entire concept of religion generally depends on myths. recursive use of myth in myth. Generally I have to read these sentences as in my opinion because the 'factual' quality of statements regarding the ur-myths of religion is usually not quantifiable, its all contextually defi…

Your point misses the mark, given the discussion centers on history and not religion per se. The biological human life of Siddartha (not to mention Jesus of Nazareth) is a matter of historical evidence, not faith or religious belief.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#27

Post by brigandish »

ggm wrote: post #7
alexmingoia wrote: post #2

The article is correct in that Buddha being a prince is a myth. The Pali canon (Tripitaka) does not assert he lived in a palace, depending on the translation used. It states he was born in bhavana (Sn. 685) which has in the past been translated as palace but it simply means a place. When Buddha talks about his fathers abode he just refers to a house or mansion or family complex, using the word nivasana (A.I 145) whic…

The article is correct in that Buddha being a prince is a myth. The use of the word myth in connection with religion always fascinates me. The entire concept of religion generally depends on myths. recursive use of myth in myth. Generally I have to read these sentences as in my opinion because the 'factual' quality of statements regarding the ur-myths of religion is usually not quantifiable, its all contextually defi…

I'm always fascinated by the use of the word religion in connection with Buddhism. I can see why, people are always mislabeling things in a way that makes sense in a quick-and-dirty way that reuses existing models of thought, but they're ultimately a drag on any deeper discussion, and this happened long ago with Buddhism. It's not a religion, it's a framework that other religions have taken on. Hence there are Buddhist religions.

It makes about as much sense to call Buddhism a religion as it is to call Ruby on Rails a website (if we're being precise).

Note: I can see how this could look like a rebuttal but it's not, I'm actually joining in with the discussion, riding along with it, not trying to be an arse. I liked the comment I'm replying to! :)

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#28

Post by larnmar »

I’m confused why the article doesn’t consider the initial question of whether the historical Buddha existed at all. Given the amount of ink that has been spilled over the existence or otherwise of the historical Jesus, and the even spottier historical sources about Buddha (we can’t even nail him down to a specific century), isn’t this question worthy of consideration?

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#29

Post by sls »

ggm wrote: post #23
alexmingoia wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I say myth, I mean in the sense that it’s not actually supported by the Tripitaka, which is the first complete written account of Buddha’s teachings by a lineage of his original monastic order (mostly confirmed by historical evidence where it exists) to survive as written to the present day, and considered canonical Buddhist teaching. It is most definitely quantifiable whether something is or is not written in t…

So its not supported by the canonical text makes it mythic. Ok, I get it now. Apocryphal.

Do you think there's a difference between "Ashoka warred with Kalinga" (contemporary and/or near-contemporary evidence survives) and "Ashoka built 84,000 stupas" (for the sake of this discussion, let's assume that there is no historical evidence for this). Because that's the distinction being drawn above.
Post reply on HN