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

81–90 of 176 posts

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#81

Post by ithinkso »

brainless wrote: post #78
ithinkso wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imperialism does but not the adjective 'imperial' which simply implies relation to an empire. Imperial Japan has nothing to do with the British and yet it is 'imperial'.

Yes you are right about the phrase "Imperial Japan" not having any relation to the British. But "Imperial India" does. Any reader searching this phrase online or looking up any common reference will find the British relation. Unfortunate, but that is how it is. As an Indian, I have always known that. That is why the phrase jumped at me. Is it too much to expect an author writing such a detailed article from this regi…

I understand what you are saying but you've asserted as truth that the author said what you said and in a pretty accusatory tone. If you use 'Imperial India' as standalone phrase it does refer to the British rule because it is the most recent and that's what most assume you mean. But when talking about Buddha it is quite a leap to think the author would use such a pointless timeframe so the context alone is enough.

Even a paragraph later the emperor Asoka is mentioned explicitly

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#82

Post by Iv »

tim333 wrote: post #61
Iv wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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..."

Many Buddhist texts are full of supernatural claims about afterlife, the worlds of demons and devas, about prayers opening the earth to see flowers giving you the text of Buddha, that sort of things.

Thinking Buddhism focuses on the philosophical parts is like cherry-picking Proverbs from the bible.

Buddhism also has its own nonsensical cosmology [1]. We just don't care too much about it in the West.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#83

Post by kingkawn »

"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"

The death of a mother in childbirth is an existence fraught with meaning and loss from the start of life for the child. How can this be so summarily dismissed as not contributing to the myth?

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#84

Post by Iv »

brigandish wrote: post #74
Iv wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 also live in and have lived around Asia, and I won't deny that there are aspects of the Buddhisms there that are full of the kind of nonsense you can see in any other religion (or pretty much anything humans touch) but that doesn't make any part of Buddhism , i.e. the 4 Noble Truths, a religion or having any of those aspects. It's quite clearly a framework (a set of observations, philsophies and methods applied to…

Huh, what are the 4 noble truths if not a doctrine that instructs people to go towards the 8 paths?

And if you chose to dismiss the religious and cultish parts, you can also find a lot of value in Jesus teaching about unconditional love and about inner spiritual discipline.

I have no qualms in people using a cleaned up religion as a source for spiritual growth, and will agree that Buddhism has many features that makes it particularly friendly, like its focus on non-violence, but don't be mistaken in what you are doing in the process. It is still a typical religion that has little inherent reason to be more sensible than any other source. All its advices have to stand on their own merit.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#85

Post by [deleted] »

sombremesa wrote: post #44
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…

Are you sure about this? "Bhavana" most certainly does not mean "a place" in modern parlance (see: "Rashtrapati Bhavan", which is the president's residence), and a lot of the other words have extant meanings in Hindi which differ significantly from what you've said here. Either Hindi has diverged a whole lot from Sanskrit and the meanings have changed (vimana literally means flying vehicle, and I'm pretty sure it's t…

[deleted]

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#86

Post by peex »

sombremesa wrote: post #73
tasogare wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Either Hindi has diverged a whole lot from Sanskrit and the meaning have changed Yes it changed significantly. That’s why philology exists. And also why languages with long existence are classified in different strata.

I doubt philology exists specifically because Hindi and Sanskrit diverged. Anyhow, have the meanings of extant words common to both languages significantly diverged? Do you have a source?

He didn't mean that philology exists because of the divergence. He means philology exists to better understand these kind of language differences.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#87

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#88

Post by danans »

brainless wrote: post #70
jdale27 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Imperialism means to extend over "foreign nations"

The Mauryans built their empire by extending over the politically and linguistically disparate nations comprising South Asia.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#89

Post by infradig »

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.

But tektōn means non-specically any craftsman or artisan, even a teacher or student.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#90

Post by brigandish »

Iv wrote: post #84
brigandish wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also live in and have lived around Asia, and I won't deny that there are aspects of the Buddhisms there that are full of the kind of nonsense you can see in any other religion (or pretty much anything humans touch) but that doesn't make any part of Buddhism , i.e. the 4 Noble Truths, a religion or having any of those aspects. It's quite clearly a framework (a set of observations, philsophies and methods applied to…

Huh, what are the 4 noble truths if not a doctrine that instructs people to go towards the 8 paths? And if you chose to dismiss the religious and cultish parts, you can also find a lot of value in Jesus teaching about unconditional love and about inner spiritual discipline. I have no qualms in people using a cleaned up religion as a source for spiritual growth, and will agree that Buddhism has many features that make…

> what are the 4 noble truths if not a doctrine that instructs people to go towards the 8 paths?

A doctrine is a belief of set of beliefs, not a set of premises or propositions for investigation nor a set of practices. For example, a hypothesis is not a doctrine, nor is the scientific method. Prince2, PMP, Scrum, Lean, Six Sigma et al are also not doctrines.

The 8-fold path is an alternative breakdown of one of the truths (the last one, presented - as all are - as "truth" because under examination/usage they should be shown to be correct), not separate.

Nowhere within the 4 or the 8 is there any requirement for belief or adherence to any authority in the form of a being or creed.

Post reply on HN