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

121–130 of 176 posts

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#121

Post by brigandish »

zepto wrote: post #31
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…

The teachings of Buddha are a framework that religions have taken on in the same sense that the teachings of Jesus are a framework that religions have taken on.

I would define a framework as set of methods and practices to apply to a specific problem domain, those methods based on principles/conclusions arrived at from observation of that domain.

If the teachings of Jesus are a framework that religions have taken on and not a doctrine, then you should specify:

1. what the problem domain is

2. what the conclusions drawn about that domain are

3. what the principles are and how they are arrived at

4. what the methods are

5. how it can be applied to different religions, or non-religions (for example, what use does prayer to God or eternal damnation have to atheists?)

You should also deal with the problem of a supernatural being that you must believe in and follow (may be covered in (5)). I don't know many frameworks like that.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#122

Post by FlyingSnake »

mantap wrote: post #105
factorialboy wrote: post #99

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.

In modern Indian context, Bhavan still means a palace, e.g. Vidhan Bhavan ⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾

(1): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vidhan_Bhavan,_Nagpur (2): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vidhan_Bhavan,_Lucknow

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#123

Post by Shihan »

tim333 wrote: post #91
kingkawn wrote: post #83

"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?

I guess it doesn't appear in the usual stories. I was also surprised he got married and had a kid about the time he wandered off to be spiritual, it seems which doesn't often seem to be mentioned.

I heard this story a few weeks ago and it made me realize a thing that I dislike in Zen Buddhism, at least the perception of Zen Buddhism I have. Isn't this way (and surely other ways) of Buddhism not also some "tainted" way of life. For me it looks very Nihilistic. Shouldn't Buddha be a good role-model - so how can he have left wife and kid? In Buddhism or at least Zen Buddhism I believe there is great emphasis on the concept of non-attachment, you should not cling on to things. You must let go of everything to find your Buddha nature. So it makes sense, that Buddha has left his family to sit under the tree. But for me this is such a denial of the human nature and thus it feels unnatural, unwise and just like other religions and sects with their doctrines and dogma. I'm a big "fan" of Robert Sapolsky and his courses of Human Biological Behavioral Evolution. Buddhism, especially Zen, gets often seen as a God-less, very logical, very humanistic religion. But there are elements, like in any cult. Dogma which would lead to the human race going extinct if everybody would follow it. I don't believe in Gods but I must admit but I am rather attracted to the (crazy :-) ) Mythology of Asatru, because it feels much more natural and in symbiosis with the human nature to me.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#124

Post by thinkingemote »

Shihan wrote: post #123
tim333 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess it doesn't appear in the usual stories. I was also surprised he got married and had a kid about the time he wandered off to be spiritual, it seems which doesn't often seem to be mentioned.

I heard this story a few weeks ago and it made me realize a thing that I dislike in Zen Buddhism, at least the perception of Zen Buddhism I have. Isn't this way (and surely other ways) of Buddhism not also some "tainted" way of life. For me it looks very Nihilistic. Shouldn't Buddha be a good role-model - so how can he have left wife and kid? In Buddhism or at least Zen Buddhism I believe there is great emphasis on t…

I thought zen taught that you shouldn't follow the Buddah as if he was a role model, as if he was a religious figure like in other religions.

"Kill the Buddah if you encounter him" might be something to do with it but might be unrelated?

I also remember something about how Buddah can be found in the butchers shop, as if to say "stop looking for him as if he was something outside you, you are doing it wrong." Or about how if you get buddhahood you can be quite comfortable cutting up dead animals (i.e. Buddah is comfortable in nature)

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#125

Post by nsenifty »

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.

> what you speak is what you write and what you write is what you speak

I am not a Sanskrit scholar by any means, but IMO, being phonetic is not necessarily the reason for that. It is more so because Sanskrit words are often derived from a small set of root words. In other words, the words are actually descriptions of things using smaller components. In this case, the root is Bha which means "to be" or "to exist", from which there are words derived such as Bhavatu - "so be it", Bhavita - "existed", Bhavana - "place of existence/dwelling".

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#126

Post by gerdesj »

wyclif wrote: post #56
gerdesj wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carpenter is a tricky term because wood is used in so many ways. This is strictly UK biased: In building terms we distinguish a first and second fix carpenter. First fix is mostly structural and second fix is the rest. If your hair is wet its probably first fix - roof trusses and the like. Second fix will include things like skirting boards. It's not a hard and fast rule and will probably involve the same people. The…

Americans often get confused when in the UK because "chippy" can mean either a carpenter or the fish and chips shop on the street.

To, not really, help counter that the shop is often called a "fish and chippery"!

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#127

Post by navaati »

edgarvaldes wrote: post #25
weberc2 wrote: 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?

> 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".

Well in French, "charpente" refers to the frame of the house, and the first thing you think about is a wooden frame, though in modern times it could be steel. A stone house wouldn’t really have a "charpente" I guess. And oftentimes "charpente" specifically means the roof structure (which is the only frame left in modern brick or concrete houses).

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#128

Post by CPLX »

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.

Worth noting that the line between what’s you a what’s foreign is quite often just a line demarcating the edge of the prior empire.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#129

Post by Shihan »

thinkingemote wrote: post #124
Shihan wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I heard this story a few weeks ago and it made me realize a thing that I dislike in Zen Buddhism, at least the perception of Zen Buddhism I have. Isn't this way (and surely other ways) of Buddhism not also some "tainted" way of life. For me it looks very Nihilistic. Shouldn't Buddha be a good role-model - so how can he have left wife and kid? In Buddhism or at least Zen Buddhism I believe there is great emphasis on t…

I thought zen taught that you shouldn't follow the Buddah as if he was a role model, as if he was a religious figure like in other religions. "Kill the Buddah if you encounter him" might be something to do with it but might be unrelated? I also remember something about how Buddah can be found in the butchers shop, as if to say "stop looking for him as if he was something outside you, you are doing it wrong." Or about…

But that might be exactly the problem. This Buddha-Nature, the enlightenment thing, to me honestly is just like the believe in a God in other religions. It is very cult like for me.

I heard there are lot of stories out there of so called Zen Masters who claim to have achieved enlightenment (those according to your example, who can drink alcohol, kill animals for eating them) who get drunk and otherwise act weirdly and it is excused with "well, we cannot understand them, they are enlightened and we not, so we cannot see the wisdom in their actions".

I have not much personal experience with Zen, but heard that this is not so uncommon.

But of course, this doesn't say, that there are personal benefits in meditating, leaving a life without drugs, have a focused mind etc. - but maybe this things are mainly a new, western construct, attached to the base religion of Buddhism.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#130

Post by emptysongglass »

jaldhar wrote: post #37
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…

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…

The "divergent versions" you refer to are really not so divergent as to exclude the discovery of a fundamental Buddhism. The Chinese collections and the Theravadin are remarkably similar and this despite being worlds apart in language of composition.
Post reply on HN