Live data from Hacker News

Who Was the Buddha?

aeon.co

101–110 of 176 posts

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#101

> the modern mindfulness movement, inherited from fairly recent Burmese innovations I had not heard that. I had understood it to have something to do with interest in Zen, which had a revival in the West starting in the mid 1900's. But I admit I don't really know anything about it. Does someone have a reference?

The fan-down teaching and the idea of insight practice for laity started in XIX century in Burma after British conquest.

First group meditation for laypeople took place in 1911.

So this is fairly new idea.

[] https://tricycle.org/magazine/meditation-en-masse/

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#102
I'm technically a Buddhist as with 90% of other Japanese people, but don't know anything about Buddhism. ("Technically" means that you're going to have a Buddhist-style burial which requires a registration by a Buddhist temple in Japan.) So let me just share a fun fact: it is widely believed that there are many Buddha relics (bones) that were originally brought from China/India and people built temples that store them, many of which still exist today throughout Japan. Actually, Kinkaku-ji (Golden Temple), one of the most famous tourist sites in Kyoto, was built for that purpose. It is believed that people stored His bone at the basis of every temple, but no one has ever confirmed it. Religion is weird.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#104
post #102

I'm technically a Buddhist as with 90% of other Japanese people, but don't know anything about Buddhism. ("Technically" means that you're going to have a Buddhist-style burial which requires a registration by a Buddhist temple in Japan.) So let me just share a fun fact: it is widely believed that there are many Buddha relics (bones) that were originally brought from China/India and people built temples that store the…

I am also technically a Buddhist (in the same sense as yours) and have little idea about what/how it is other than some observed monthly/yearly rituals.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#105

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…

Bhavana does mean a palace. Mandira and vimana do not mean palace. Nivasa means residence and does not indicate the nature of residence. I am appalled by this comment. These Sanskrit / Pali words you quoted, these are not obscure words. Infact they are used today in most of North India. Your translations and assertions are completely wrong. I would expect a higher level of scholarship before one makes such a matter o…

Is it not possible for a word to change in meaning over time? For example "mansion" in English means a big and expensive house befitting nobility, but in the original Latin it just means a dwelling.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#106
post #24

Is it certain that he ever existed? Or is it like Jesus?

If you read the linked article, I think you'll find that the answer that the Buddha would have suggested for your question is silence ;-)

However, I am not well learned in the ways of Buddhism, so I shall attempt to answer your question with words. What do you mean by your question?

Do you mean: Was there a person exactly as these stories describe that did exactly what the stories describe and said exactly what the stories describe? There is no doubt at all to this answer: no, there was not. Despite my lack of education in Buddhism, I feel pretty confident that the subset of Buddhist practitioners who believe in such a thing approaches zero (I'm sure there are some, but not significant). Buddhism is a religion without dogma after all. Why else would a respected scholar on Buddhism write an article pretty much saying that the stories about Buddha are likely to be incorrect in part or in whole?

Or is your question: Was there a person who was the originator of the Buddhist religion? I think it is highly likely that the answer is "yes". I mean, it's possible that there was a group who started the religion, but it seems improbable to me. Look at any modern religion/cult. How many are started by a single person (all of them that I know about) and how many are started by a group of people (I assume that there are some, but I don't know of them)?

Or is your question: Are any of the stories about the person who started the Buddhist religion true? Again, I think this is a pretty easy answer: almost certainly yes. I mean, what the heck are they saying about him? He was born. He struggled until he found enlightenment. Then he started a religion. I mean the religion exists today. That's pretty good evidence that the original leader did some stuff.

Or are you asking: Is it true that the Buddha really was enlightened in the way he claimed? I can answer that one easily too: I don't know. ;-) And the really cool thing that I like about Buddhism is that I don't think it really matters all that much. You can learn about Buddhism, use the bits that are helpful to you and chuck away all the rest. Other Buddhists will pretty much think you are doing a good job -- or at least that's been my experience.

HN posting rules advise me to view your question charitably and to assume good faith. In that spirit, I hope that even if you never intended to ask any of the above questions, you can pick one or more of them and get answers that will help you. If the question was rhetorical and simply meant to belittle others who think differently than you do, then I apologise for wasting your time.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#107
post #16
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Carpentry is the construction of things by joining wood pieces together. Woodworker is more general and would include things like finishing, or carving solid objects out of wood, or any kind of wood work really. Furniture, frames for houses, and so on, are typically considered carpentry. Etymologically it comes from a Latin word meaning a wagon maker. In contemporary English, at least in North America, it's mostly us…

There is an interesting cultural dependence here. I live in England and we have very few wooden houses. I have always assumed Jesus's "carpentry" to refer to building furniture. It simply never occurred to me that he might be building houses out of wood.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#109
post #55
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It turns out that myths are an incredibly powerful vessel to preserve and transmit information. Especially before we had widespread access to printing presses, books, and libraries

"Sacred text as cultural genome: an inheritance mechanism and method for studying cultural evolution", https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/2153599X.2016.11... : > Sacred religious texts have the properties required for an inheritance system. They are replicated across generations with high fidelity and are transcribed into action every generation by the invocation and interpretation of selected passages. In t…

A response to that paper:

https://onunicornsandgenes.blog/2018/11/04/journal-club-of-o...

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#110
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bhavana does mean a palace. Mandira and vimana do not mean palace. Nivasa means residence and does not indicate the nature of residence. I am appalled by this comment. These Sanskrit / Pali words you quoted, these are not obscure words. Infact they are used today in most of North India. Your translations and assertions are completely wrong. I would expect a higher level of scholarship before one makes such a matter o…

Is it not possible for a word to change in meaning over time? For example "mansion" in English means a big and expensive house befitting nobility, but in the original Latin it just means a dwelling.

Unlike English, the Sanskrit words do not change over time. Because in Sanskrit what you speak is what you write and what you write is what you speak.
Post reply on HN