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

171–176 of 176 posts

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#171

Post by larnmar »

jbotz wrote: post #161
larnmar wrote: post #28

I’m confused why the article doesn’t consider the initial question of whether the historical Buddha existed at all. Given the amount of ink that has been spilled over the existence or otherwise of the historical Jesus, and the even spottier historical sources about Buddha (we can’t even nail him down to a specific century), isn’t this question worthy of consideration?

I'm really far from an expert on this, but I've read quite a lot on the subject and my understanding is that there is considerably more historical evidence for Gautama-the-Buddha being a single real person than for Jesus Christ, that "we can't even nail him down to a specific century" notwithstanding. In the case of Jesus the timing isn't much of a question because of the well-accounted for political events of the ti…

Yeah, that’s the kind of thing that should have been in the article.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#172

Post by zepto »

brigandish wrote: post #170
zepto wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because the teachings of Jesus aren’t presented in the format you prefer doesn’t mean they can’t be. It’s not hard to do this, so I’ll leave that as an exercise for you. Who said the framework has to be useful for atheists?

If it's a framework then it will be able to be applied in several contexts. Hence, there are a set of questions that help show it is a framework. It doesn't have to be useful for atheists but it would go a long way to showing it's a framework and not a religion. I'd be more than happy to go through all of those questions for Buddhism (or Prince2 or Rails or any framework), it would be easy. I can't see how it would b…

What are the several contexts in which the framework of Buddhism can be applied?

(I’m not asking you to answer your questions, since they don’t establish this.)

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#173

Post by brigandish »

zepto wrote: post #172
brigandish wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's a framework then it will be able to be applied in several contexts. Hence, there are a set of questions that help show it is a framework. It doesn't have to be useful for atheists but it would go a long way to showing it's a framework and not a religion. I'd be more than happy to go through all of those questions for Buddhism (or Prince2 or Rails or any framework), it would be easy. I can't see how it would b…

What are the several contexts in which the framework of Buddhism can be applied? (I’m not asking you to answer your questions, since they don’t establish this.)

The problem domain is that of happiness/suffering, and how to obtain/lessen it. Anywhere that is a goal it can be applied. It has been applied to each of the Buddhisms (see edit note), which is why they're called Buddhism. You could apply it to a school or business if you wished, or a family, or yourself.

The problem domain for Ruby on Rails is how to build websites. That's why websites built using Rails are referred to as a Rails site.

The problem domain of Prince2 is how to manage a project. It's why projects which apply it are called Prince2 projects, or Prince2 organisations if they apply it more widely.

What's the problem domain for Jesus' teachings? Where has it been applied?

Edit: Because of the misnomer (people calling things Buddhism that aren't) it makes my initial phrasing seem circular. The Buddhisms are each their own religion which then applied Buddhism, which is why they're now know as Buddhism. So, Bon, the Tibetan shamanic religion is now known as Tibetan Buddhism.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#174

Post by zepto »

brigandish wrote: post #173
zepto wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the several contexts in which the framework of Buddhism can be applied? (I’m not asking you to answer your questions, since they don’t establish this.)

The problem domain is that of happiness/suffering, and how to obtain/lessen it. Anywhere that is a goal it can be applied. It has been applied to each of the Buddhisms (see edit note), which is why they're called Buddhism. You could apply it to a school or business if you wished, or a family, or yourself. The problem domain for Ruby on Rails is how to build websites. That's why websites built using Rails are referred…

The problem domain for Jesus teachings is ethical action and how to encourage it.

It has been applied to each of the forms of Christianity as well as in many secular societies that eschew the religious components.

You could apply it to a school or business if you wished, or a family or yourself.

The various Christianitys just like the Buddhisms incorporate many of the beliefs and customs that existed before Christ and the Buddha’s teachings respectively were incorporated.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#175

Post by smadurange »

mindentropy wrote: post #98
humbfool2 wrote: post #34

Recently I read Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse quite an interesting book. In the book he tried to convey Knowledge is transferable, wisdom is not. Wisdom can only be gained from experience. The existence of buddha is debateable but literature has some good and relatable lessons we can learn.

I found the book to have a very Western perspective of things. I am from India and could not relate very well to it considering it has good reviews. The book also has very dark undertones to it. It has this very "Return of the prodigal son" feel to it.

I studied that book for my literature course in high school. That book is a joke. It tried to imitate the story of the buddha but twisted it to fit a western narrative. Author did himself a great disservice writing it. Would have been better off if he tried to just create something original instead.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#176

Post by tim333 »

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'm kind of working on a fork. Everyone should have their own variant.
Post reply on HN