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

31–40 of 176 posts

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#31

Post by zepto »

brigandish wrote: post #27
ggm wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#32

Post by slothtrop »

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…

I took the usage of myth here to make a distinction when talking about what we know of the "historical" Buddah but maybe I'm wrong and his contradiction was informed by religious scripture

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#33

Post by Iv »

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…

Thing is, it is totally appropriate in historical discussions about existing people, even if they are playing an important role in a religion. That's actually what usually happens when you dissect religions: you spot myths, inaccuracies, later inventions, exaggeration, propaganda, and once all that removed, you are left back with a much more historical account that usually looks nothing like the original religion.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#34

Post by humbfool2 »

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.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#35

Post by Iv »

brigandish wrote: post #27
ggm wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

> 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 framework several people use to build atheistic, humanist philosophies. It is less common (but used to be two centuries ago) to do the same with Christianity. There are also Jews who reject the belief in God and many religious parts of the Talmud but still follow many tenets of judaism for a variety of philosophical reasons.

Living in Asia, seeing the more cultish aspect traditional Buddhism can have, made it harder for me to see it as a kind of special religion, rather than one that is exotic enough to westerners so that they can transform it into a modern philosophy.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#36

Post by alexmingoia »

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 building, the monk Gotama refrains from such low arts, such wrong means of livelihood."

D.I, 9-12

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#37

Post by jaldhar »

alexmingoia wrote: post #14
ggm wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 “half Magadhi”) Pali was prevalent in Avanti in West India (the geographical base of Sthaviravadins) not Magadha. The Sarvastivadins used Sanskrit, and Mahasanghikas used yet another language for their version. All of them claimed to have “The Original Teachings of the Buddha.”

So I think attempts to find “fundamental” Buddhism are ultimately futile.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#38

Post by gerbilly »

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 gess because there wouldn't be much of an article at all.

I mean you basically wrote the whole article in your comment above by saying: "whether the historical Buddha existed at all"

I'm betting he probably did exist, because when you take all the personal anecdotes in the scriptures, many of which are mentioned in the article, they make coherent sense as the life story of a single human being.

The little details and the personal quirks all add up.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#39

Post by StandardFuture »

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…

This feels pedantic and off-topic. This is clearly just as much a discussion of historical accuracy as it is one of religious accuracy.

Religious documents are just as valuable to historians and archaeologists, etc. as they are to people who practice a religion.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#40

Post by smadurange »

It's often hilarious when I hear western analyses of Buddhism and the Buddha. It's like a trying to understand general relativity using analogies and guesses. You feel like you understand it, till you get to the Mathematics of it.

First of all drop your arrogance. And understand that your way of thinking is already shaped by deep underlying assumptions that often originated in a Christian backdrop, including western science. In orthodox Buddhism, like that in Sri Lanka, the path to understanding Buddhism is uncontroversial, difficult but uncontroversial. Like you would spend years studying in schools to become a Physicist or a Mathematician, put in that hard work and after that you might actually be in a credible position to tell the world what is mythical about Buddhism and what is not.

Story of the Buddha doesn't start at Siddhartha Gautama. It's a story that spans a time frame that is not humanly perceivable making what is mythical and what is not exceedingly relative. Of course when you attach a loaded word like "myth" to anything that you can't experience from when and where you are now, none of that matters anymore.

Post reply on HN