Who Was the Buddha? • Hacker News Board

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#91

Post by tim333 » Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 6:15 AM UTC

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.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#92

Post by cambalache » Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 6:30 AM UTC

abecode wrote: post #60

edgarvaldes wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

My brother is a carpenter and works with a lot of Latinos. He also does birdwatching as a hobby. Supposedly carpintero is also what they call woodpeckers.

That's correct. But usually it's called "pajaro carpintero". Woody Woodpecker is called "El pajaro loco" though.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#93

Post by IshV » Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 6:32 AM UTC

wahern wrote: post #68

> 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 That seems dubious. One potential purpose is convenience--one less person in the picture. Another is a deliberate excise of a female character, reflecting either a fear or simple apathy toward the feminine. The Cult of the Virgin Mary in Christianity is an example of what can happen if y…

The Buddha's step-mother actually played a central role in the establishment of Buddhism. She drove the establishment of the order of nuns.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#94

Post by webboynews » Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 6:34 AM UTC

sombremesa wrote: post #44

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…

Are you sure about this? "Bhavana" most certainly does not mean "a place" in modern parlance (see: "Rashtrapati Bhavan", which is the president's residence), and a lot of the other words have extant meanings in Hindi which differ significantly from what you've said here. Either Hindi has diverged a whole lot from Sanskrit and the meanings have changed (vimana literally means flying vehicle, and I'm pretty sure it's t…

Hes using the word "place" in the sense Americans use it.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#95

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 6:38 AM UTC

sombremesa wrote: post #73

tasogare wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Either Hindi has diverged a whole lot from Sanskrit and the meaning have changed Yes it changed significantly. That’s why philology exists. And also why languages with long existence are classified in different strata.

I doubt philology exists specifically because Hindi and Sanskrit diverged. Anyhow, have the meanings of extant words common to both languages significantly diverged? Do you have a source?

[deleted]

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#96

Post by vagy » Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 6:38 AM UTC

You can ask Klaus Kenneth who Buddha was :-)

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#97

Post by tim333 » Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 6:41 AM UTC

Iv wrote: post #82

tim333 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Buddhism is special for atheistic, humanist philosophies in that the foundational writings didn't go on about God. Of course people may have tacked stuff on subsequently. The Torah, the teachings of Jesus and Muhammad on the other hand all recognise Genesis and "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..."

Many Buddhist texts are full of supernatural claims about afterlife, the worlds of demons and devas, about prayers opening the earth to see flowers giving you the text of Buddha, that sort of things. Thinking Buddhism focuses on the philosophical parts is like cherry-picking Proverbs from the bible. Buddhism also has its own nonsensical cosmology [1]. We just don't care too much about it in the West. [1] https://en.w…

I meant the accounts of what Buddha himself taught seem to steer clear of God. eg in the article:

>when asked abstract metaphysical questions, such as whether the world is eternal, whether the soul is different from the body, or what happens to a liberated person (tathāgata) after death and so on, Gotama stays silent, or points out that he has set these subjects aside

he seems to stick to the observable basics. Though as mentioned, of course people may have tacked stuff on subsequently.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#98

Post by mindentropy » Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 6:43 AM UTC

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.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#99

Post by factorialboy » Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 6:54 AM UTC

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…

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 of fact comment.

Re: Who Was the Buddha?

#100

Post by brainless » Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 7:11 AM UTC

brainless wrote: post #58

A side nitpick: I find it surprising the author mentions "pre-imperial India" to mark the era when Buddha was alive. There is a couple thousand years of rich history between the life of Buddha and "pre-imperial India". I would really like the Western authors to stop using Imperialism as a bookmark, as if India had nothing else significant before.

After reading through all of the comments to this thread, I want to thank everyone for helping me think through the meaning and context.

I realize that "imperial India" conclusively means "British India" to me (and many others since this is undoubtedly the reference online as well). But I agree that "imperial" itself could mean the Mauryan empire or others (the meaning being "of an empire"). I guess my own negativity to the phrase "imperial India" stopped me from seeing this.

But this also makes me think, how words, phrases or history has different interpretations or meanings. It fits in this context because Buddha being mystic or not can also be debated in similar ways. We see what we want to see. The article trying to "un-mystify" Buddha made me biased against the author without me realizing it.