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

61–70 of 176 posts

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#61

Post by tim333 »

Iv wrote: post #35
brigandish wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Buddhi…

> It's not a religion, it's a framework that other religions have taken on. Same can be said about the Torah, the teachings of Jesus and Muhammad. Each has a plethora of religions built on top of them, that we group into big families (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) despite some members of these families having tried to kill each other for centuries. I think that what makes Buddhism a bit apart is that it is also a fra…

I think Buddhism is special for atheistic, humanist philosophies in that the foundational writings didn't go on about God. Of course people may have tacked stuff on subsequently.

The Torah, the teachings of Jesus and Muhammad on the other hand all recognise Genesis and "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..."

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#62

Post by jaldhar »

ma2rten wrote: post #53
jaldhar wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One also has to bear in mind that the Tripitakha was compiled several centuries after the Buddha is said to have lived and has several divergent versions according to the ideological predilections of its editors. Also Pali was probably not the native language of the Buddha. The vernacular of the area where he lived and taught was call Magadhi. (The Jain Agamas are transmitted in a related language called Ardhamagadhi…

I believe that some scholars actually believe that Pali is an artificial language, a mixture between different dialects that was intelligible to people from different regions. There is no question that there are some later additions. There are even some contradictions. But by comparing different passages and comparing with the Chinese Agamas, we can get a pretty good idea of what the Buddha actually thought.

Yes I have read that Pali could have been a trade language.

Interestingly this method of textual comparison has also proven useful in tracing the history of the “Hindu” Samkhya school; one of whose early works, lost in Sanskrit, is preserved in the Chinese (Mahayana) Buddhist canon.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#63

Post by labster »

gerdesj wrote: post #51
QuercusMax wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

@BigOak. I think that Peter was a Rock and not just a stone - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter#%22Rock%22_dialogu...

That would explain his catchphrase: Can thou smell that which The Rock do cooketh?

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#64

Post by jdale27 »

brainless wrote: post #58

A side nitpick: I find it surprising the author mentions "pre-imperial India" to mark the era when Buddha was alive. There is a couple thousand years of rich history between the life of Buddha and "pre-imperial India". I would really like the Western authors to stop using Imperialism as a bookmark, as if India had nothing else significant before.

Why are you assuming that they are referring to the British Empire? They could be referring to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire, which covered most of India not long after Buddha is said to have lived.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#65

Post by jariel »

brainless wrote: post #58

A side nitpick: I find it surprising the author mentions "pre-imperial India" to mark the era when Buddha was alive. There is a couple thousand years of rich history between the life of Buddha and "pre-imperial India". I would really like the Western authors to stop using Imperialism as a bookmark, as if India had nothing else significant before.

"stop using Imperialism as a bookmark, as if India had nothing else significant before."

This is definitely not a reference to the British Raj, it's a reference to Indian 'Imperial India'.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#66

Post by plinkplonk »

dkarl wrote: post #45
haecceity wrote: post #30

I wonder if he would have scorned all this idolatry and worship. I think he would have.

I think he would have seen much contemporary Buddhist observance as entirely disconnected from his teachings. That doesn't necessarily mean he would have scorned it. There is one sutta in which a follower of a rival teacher was convinced by his teachings and wanted to follow him, and the Buddha advised him to continue respecting his former master. There are also important suttas in which he stressed that his own teac…

" It's a point of great controversy among contemporary Buddhists:"

among contemporary western Buddhists, maybe, who have a hard time wrapping their heads around the concept, (which is understandable, since Christianity - at least the mainstream versions - which was the dominant European religion for centuries has no corresponding concept).

In Buddhism as practised in Asia (Thailand, Burma,Srilanka, India, Nepal, China, Japan etc) it is not controversial at all, and is quite mainstream, with next to no "controversy" around it.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#67

Post by brainless »

jdale27 wrote: post #64
brainless wrote: post #58

A side nitpick: I find it surprising the author mentions "pre-imperial India" to mark the era when Buddha was alive. There is a couple thousand years of rich history between the life of Buddha and "pre-imperial India". I would really like the Western authors to stop using Imperialism as a bookmark, as if India had nothing else significant before.

Why are you assuming that they are referring to the British Empire? They could be referring to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire , which covered most of India not long after Buddha is said to have lived.

Can you please find a single source that says "Imperial India" means anything but "British rule in India"?

I would be happy if you could. If not you proved my exact point again.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#68

Post by wahern »

> The death of the Buddha’s mother, Māyā, when giving birth to him serves no purpose as myth, and can therefore be accepted as fact

That seems dubious. One potential purpose is convenience--one less person in the picture. Another is a deliberate excise of a female character, reflecting either a fear or simple apathy toward the feminine. The Cult of the Virgin Mary in Christianity is an example of what can happen if you leave the door open for a potentially powerful feminine character.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#69

Post by jariel »

smadurange wrote: post #40

It's often hilarious when I hear western analyses of Buddhism and the Buddha. It's like a trying to understand general relativity using analogies and guesses. You feel like you understand it, till you get to the Mathematics of it. First of all drop your arrogance. And understand that your way of thinking is already shaped by deep underlying assumptions that often originated in a Christian backdrop, including western…

I think you've misunderstood the nature of article.

The article is about the historical Buddha i.e. the person whom people believe existed, as a human.

It's not about 'understanding Buddhism'.

There is nothing 'Western' about objective historical investigation, and neither is the term 'myth' highly overloaded; if people believe strongly in a narrative that is not based in reality, we call that 'myth' and it's a fair term.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#70

Post by brainless »

jdale27 wrote: post #64
brainless wrote: post #58

A side nitpick: I find it surprising the author mentions "pre-imperial India" to mark the era when Buddha was alive. There is a couple thousand years of rich history between the life of Buddha and "pre-imperial India". I would really like the Western authors to stop using Imperialism as a bookmark, as if India had nothing else significant before.

Why are you assuming that they are referring to the British Empire? They could be referring to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire , which covered most of India not long after Buddha is said to have lived.

Oh the Maurya dynasty is exactly one part of the rich history I mentioned, that is non Imperial.

Edit: Imperialism means to extend over "foreign nations". Mauryan empire is not foreign, it is as Indian as it can get.

Post reply on HN