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

111–120 of 176 posts

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#111

Post by jfoutz »

sessy wrote: post #110
mantap wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Sanskrit words do not change over time.

That is amazing. I've only used english and a touch of spanish, and those words are so slippery. Even latin has a drift over time. i've poked at Aramaic, but never more than a week or two of half hearted effort.

I'm really interested in Sanskrit now. Perhaps 5 years of concentrated effort to access thousands of years of writing sounds amazing. I have a hard time with Twain, much less Chaucer. English slips so much, so quickly.

I suppose there really aren't puns or double entendres though. I can't imagine how semantics would survive the abuse of irony for thousands of years.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#112

Post by eeZah7Ux »

sessy wrote: post #110
mantap wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not so quick! The thresholds between "hot" and "warm", or between "house" and "palace" are not defined in the grammar.

Unless you can find Sanskrit dictionaries from 2500 years ago giving exact measures of houses and palaces...

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#113

Post by mantap »

sessy wrote: post #110
mantap wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Having a phonemic orthography does not stop changes in meaning.

As an aside, if the language is living rather than dead a phonemic orthography doesn't prevent change to spelling and pronunciation either, you just get extra alternative spellings and pronunciations, rather than divergent spelling and pronunciation.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#114

Post by empath75 »

sessy wrote: post #110
mantap wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That’s nonsense and magical thinking. Sanskrit is a language like any other. Latin meanings haven’t changed for a long time because it’s a dead language but they certainly changed while it was being actively used. Sanskrit is certainly similar.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#115

Post by fsiefken »

For a similar demythologising take on the Buddha read 'A Bull of a Man' by John Powers, professor of Asian Studies and Buddhism in Australia.

"The androgynous, asexual Buddha of contemporary popular imagination stands in stark contrast to the muscular, virile, and sensual figure presented in Indian Buddhist texts. In early Buddhist literature and art, the Buddha's perfect physique and sexual prowess are important components of his legend as the world s ultimate man. He is both the scholarly, religiously inclined brahman and the warrior ruler who excels in martial arts, athletic pursuits, and sexual exploits. The Buddha effortlessly performs these dual roles, combining his society's norms for ideal manhood and creating a powerful image taken up by later followers in promoting their tradition in a hotly contested religious marketplace.

In this groundbreaking study of previously unexplored aspects of the early Buddhist tradition, John Powers skillfully adapts methodological approaches from European and North American historiography to the study of early Buddhist literature, art, and iconography, highlighting aspects of the tradition that have been surprisingly invisible in earlier scholarship. The book focuses on the figure of the Buddha and his monastic followers to show how they were constructed as paragons of masculinity, whose powerful bodies and compelling sexuality attracted women, elicited admiration from men, and convinced skeptics of their spiritual attainments."

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003MKB5ZE/ref=dbs_a_def_r...

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#116

Post by empath75 »

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.

“Imperial” is an adjective referring to empires. You literally just said Mauryan _empire_.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#117

Post by goodcanadian »

soufron wrote: post #24

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

Your question presupposes that there is significant doubt about the existence of Jesus. I am fairly confident that the historical person existed. I am also fairly confident that many of the stories about him are invented or at least, greatly exaggerated. The same applies to Buddha; however, a sibling comment answered much better than I.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#118

Post by throwaway38235 »

alexmingoia wrote: post #36
haecceity wrote: post #30

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

Statues and idols as a form of respect and reminder, no. As a form of seeking good fortune or merit he most definitely disapproved: "Whereas some religious men, while living of food provided by the faithful make their living by such low arts, such wrong means of livelihood as palmistry, divining by signs, interpreting dreams... bringing good or bad luck... invoking the goodness of luck... picking the lucky site for a…

> Statues and idols as a form of respect and reminder, no.

On the contrary, the Buddha explicitly and clearly prohibited his followers from making statues and other depictions of him. People started ignoring his request around 500 years later.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#119

Post by throwaway38235 »

goodcanadian wrote: post #117
soufron wrote: post #24

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

Your question presupposes that there is significant doubt about the existence of Jesus. I am fairly confident that the historical person existed. I am also fairly confident that many of the stories about him are invented or at least, greatly exaggerated. The same applies to Buddha; however, a sibling comment answered much better than I.

There is significant doubt about the existence of Jesus. The historical records are less than scarce.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#120

Post by collyw »

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…

How are you sure that this particular version of history is correct and the far more popular version (where he is a prince) is wrong?
Post reply on HN