Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Which parts of Buddhism do you think could have possibly been 'made up' and words added on..
zenmyste
Veteran
Not that it really matters because 'wise words are still wise words', arnt they? no matter where they came from..
But just curious to which parts you think actually 'did' come from Buddhas mouth and which did not etc etc..
(of course, impossible to say, i know)
But still, whats your thoughts?
(I personally think that its almost 'impossible' that what we read today about Buddhism is 100% accurate. Simply because of chinese whispers -- Even when I say something in work, just by the end of the day its all been changed and mis-worded..) And apparently nothing was even written about Buddha until 300 years 'AFTER' his death so seems pretty hard to believe that nothings been changed slightly..
Also, Do you really believe Buddha was this 'perfect' human being. Or do you think his image has been completely blown out of proportion?
Thoughts? Thanks in advance.
But just curious to which parts you think actually 'did' come from Buddhas mouth and which did not etc etc..
(of course, impossible to say, i know)
But still, whats your thoughts?
(I personally think that its almost 'impossible' that what we read today about Buddhism is 100% accurate. Simply because of chinese whispers -- Even when I say something in work, just by the end of the day its all been changed and mis-worded..) And apparently nothing was even written about Buddha until 300 years 'AFTER' his death so seems pretty hard to believe that nothings been changed slightly..
Also, Do you really believe Buddha was this 'perfect' human being. Or do you think his image has been completely blown out of proportion?
Thoughts? Thanks in advance.
0
Comments
But lets face it, Maybe you and i are perfect, but some of these sick rapist/murderers aint perfect..
mmm, ok.
It starts at the beginning, and those travelling think that the journey is imperfect, because they do not see the end.
Well, if Buddha was perfect, then he wasn't human. If he was human, he wasn't perfect. I may have missed something -- and I am perfectly happy if someone fills me in -- but I have never read where Buddha said he was perfect.
Evil isnt 'always' overcome by Good. This is just a fact of Life.
(whilst man is still breathing. Evil and good will always exist with one another, Without one overcoming the other.
(im glad you think like that though, its very positive and optimistic. But It just doesnt work like that for some.
What if a man takes the life of someone (or worse) and ruins that persons life. And that person may not feel any remorse. He gets sent down smiling at his victim.. Gets fed 3 meals aday. Work out, and have a great life in prison, Then dies a peaceful death in his cell. (still not feeling any remorse)
Wheres the good part for the Victim?
And like @vinlyn said, if the Buddha was human, he wasn't perfect. But he is a very good example of how to practice the Dhamma, even if he wasn't a real person. Perhaps he was created as the archetype for a Buddhist practitioner. Doesn't make a difference to me. It's the underlying message and wisdom that counts.
Finally, just a side note - who cares if others think the Buddha was "perfect" or deity-like? If that helps them connect with the Dhamma, then all the better.
the topic is as follows: Thanks.
For him to be perfect, his mind might be but he still human, but he was certainly happy.
Of course we can't be certain that the suttas and sutras are an accurate record of what the Buddha taught. What we can do is practice those teachings and see if they work.
"Listen -- you will have to forgive us. These endless discussions about rebirth are tiresome. We don't care. Either you accept it or you don't. If you don't fine. But there is no doubt that rebirth was the Buddha's teaching. People who cannot accept that, cannot accept must of the other teachings of the Buddha.
And please spare us the "buddhas teachings were not written down until..."First of all, this is false. Worst case scenario, Buddha's teachings were written down 150 years after his parinirvana (dates of Asokha pillars), which best scholarship places 407-400 BCE. But it is very likely that the earliest sutras were being written down within 50 years.
Mahayana sutras were almost certainly later compositions.
Tantras later than that.
But the one thing all these teachings share is a common thread of rebirth, karma, and dependent origination which are the cause of samsara, and the breaking of rebirth and karma through understanding dependent origination, which gauranteed freedom from rebirth in this or at most seven rebirths.
All those people who think they will attain awakening withotu understanding Buddha's actual teachings on this subject are deluded."
It's really not that important to me when they were written of if there was a Buddha at all, but I do think Buddhists indirectly undermine the teachings by arguing unsupported orthodox theories about their origin. Many people these days, even laymen, have the internet and the critical skills to investigate claims, find them wanting, and conclude that Buddhists are swayed by tradition and indifferent to facts. This is the worst thing that can happen to the teachings, classifying them in many educated folks minds as just more mumbo jumbo, which is not the case at all.
By calling himself Tathagata, he is essentially saying he has actualized the most supreme perfection. A perfection that is far beyond the comprehension of ordinary people's minds. That is what I see anyway.
But I appreciate the reference.
Which parts of Buddhism do you think could have possibly been 'made up' and words added on..
All of it? None of it? Don't care! The authenticity of the Buddha's words are best left to those who are happy to remain as observers and quantifiers of the path. Those walking the path are usually busy enough experiencing the path's truths to make authenticity concerns over what was original and what was added, a moot point.
You know, as a beginner to Buddhism, I find Loppon's comment amusing. If he does indeed practice Buddhism, it seems contradictory to say that 'there is no doubt' that rebirth was the Buddha's teachings. First of all, Buddha lived in a society that believed in reincarnation. Yes, reincarnation and rebirth may not be the same concepts, but historians have made arguments that perhaps Buddha did stem his teachings from his culture and previous religious background as a Hindu. How much that influenced him we don't know and probably never will. The authenticity of his concepts will remain unknown.
But back to the point....does that mean that for someone who does not necessarily believe in rebirth or reincarnation cannot be a Buddhist? I think not. Does that mean if I don't believe in the realms as identified in Zen Buddhism, I am not a Buddhist?
I can certainly post the argument that by believing in karma and rebirth, and for some, believing in it blindly without question or analysis, is no different than praying on the rosary and ensuring that I do good deeds so that I may go to heaven and end suffering. Religions are religions are religions. They are man made, they are interpreted and misinterpreted all the time. They change and evolve, or in some case, devolve over time.
50 years? 50 years is a long time. The world changes over beyond comparison in 50 years. People change, doctrines change, beliefs change, cultures and religions change.
I think Buddha, or whoever spoke these words had the right idea:
"If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world. But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease, free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.”
And with that, I find comfort in the knowledge and wisdom of the 4 noble truths, the eightfold path, and the idea of compassion and love for oneself and those around us. I could even care less if Buddha really did exist. Again, the knowledge and wisdom is there, whoever proposed it.
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
it is based on what was passed down through generations
and historical research/evidence.
no different from the tales about alexander the great, christopher columbus
or george washington.
how do you know this oft quoted words were not made up???
But we don't follow the Dharma because a man named Buddha gave it to us. We follow it because it reaches inside us and fills a void. All such sacred writings are a mixture of what was actually said and happened and other religious writers editing and appending over the centuries. Anyone who studies history and historical writings knows this. Asking that every word in the sutras supposedly uttered by Buddha be inerrant is an impossible standard. You want wisdom straight from the mouth of the guru? There are plenty of them alive today who will let you sit at their feet, if that's your preference.
Seems to me, the message is what is most important, not when it was written down.
For me - and I am quite a sceptic - it is very difficult to dismiss rebirth in the light of available evidence. And believe me I would like to be able to just say "it's just a belief". If you look at the teachings about rebirth, it isn't anything like "oh it's so great I will return and have a second chance" or "I am just learning lessons and my soul is evolving towards some higher self". Quite the opposite.
But it's all good. I do believe in rebirth and I feel if I work on one area of the dharma in this life, then that is good and next life a different area. I meditate almost all day because I hear voices and that is going to be my life.
Allow me to spill a little heretical Zen Buddhist wine.
What is transmitted is a truth that was, is and will always be everywhere. While the source of that transmission is universal, the manner of the transmission is only as important as we choose to make it. The faith/ devotional will meet it through their guru, the suttra scholars through the teachings, the meditative through the sublime.
Yes Jeffrey, there is a transmission from teacher to student but you might want to open yourself up to a wider definition of what that teacher is because for some folks, that transmission teacher is those suttra's.
On another note.and I don't know if any of it applies to your situation..
I met once met another Buddhist who heard voices who discovered that he had some interesting options on how he experienced who he was. He said that part of his practise was just moving his tendency to experience existence through his thought dominating skhanda over to the other four. (Form, sensation, activity & consciousness)
He said he discovered what he was really doing was breathing more life into the other four skhanda's that had atrophied over the years.
He never stopped hearing voices but where they used to define him, now they're like irrelevant background chatter.
I'm starting gradually to allow more space to my thoughts rather than only having spaces for consideration of the voices. Before that it was habitual chatter followed by webs of labels from the voices.
It is encouraging for me how you shared another Buddhist's triumph over voices. I am meditating all day from wake/sleep aside from meals, smoke, coffee. I still feel major stress but I feel awesome that I am devoting my efforts to the dharma.
Thanks @how
That's what the OP was asking.
The texts don't seem to work for me as representing the life and career of one man, they seem much more systematised, as if an organised group put together a core path in a relatively short timespan. They look like work, a project.
The fact that some of the teachings are given by other members of the Sangha rather than the Buddha is indicative of a collective - it's possible that originally there were more voices, but as the legend of the Buddha grew, tradition tended to attribute more and more texts to him.
There's a passage... I think this happens elsewhere in the canon too: This puzzled me at first. Because in real life, I don't think the words would be exactly the same; people use different words. But then I realised that it's a sort of seal, so that when students say 'the Buddha didn't say this', the teacher could say, 'yes, but he approved it'. Perhaps as the Buddha legend grew in the popular imagination, it was necessary to connect him to all the teachings and innovations.
The other thing that strikes me about the writing, is how rhetorical it is, and how many actual dialogues and debates are illustrated. This gives me the impression of a very professional attempt to outline a practice in engagement with the salient issues of the day, and the views of other schools, finalised by discussion in a scholarly manner, between equals.
This is of course just speculation, but at the very least, even if there was a single founder, there are indications of greater egalitarianism than is widely imagined by Buddhists today.
I think there was a single Buddha with a very organized teaching, but the repetitiveness in and amongst suttas shows that some further organization has taken place. Also because sometimes the conversations are quite systemetic, not very lively.
Also, meditation does seem to increase memory skills, but I don't think it is very plausible all conversations and teachings were remembered exactly years after they have taken place. However, because there were many enlightened ones around at the time the suttas were formed (orally), they were able to replicate the teachings very accurately, partly because they realized the same things as the Buddha.
From that time there may have been some slight alterations in the suttas now and then. However, the suttas still form a unison. You have to be really taking out and reinterpreting a lot (an unreasonable amount, if you ask me) to considerably change the meaning of the dhamma. Like the 'perfect human being', perfect in conduct, yes. Take that out and you have to reinterpret too many suttas.
Therefore I don't think specific parts are made up later. Some words may be different, some suttas may seem slightly out of place, but when you look at the whole, it's pretty clear what the Buddha was pointing at. Same with a digital picture, you don't look at individual pixels to find out what the picture shows. You look at the whole.
Of course, we shoud base our views not just on suttas, but on experience mainly. But the suttas can be a very, very helpful map.
(above was about the pali canon, I know too little about sutras outside of the canon to comment on those)
Metta!
Also it would presume the Buddha read his sermons from a text that was handed out. Otherwise he would have had to have dialogue with those writing down the text in subsequent days. I mean in my sanghas it is quite an effort to record the dharma talks, spontaneous not a written sermon. We need recording devices and computers to transcribe the next.
I hate to hurt anyone's refuge and the written down teachings have been tested true as we can hear the guru's etc wisdom for ourselves. I am just asking questions of how exact transcription occured. I'm with Prairie Ghost that it is a project of a team.
The Buddha continues to teach even today. The truth manifests and is expressed according to attributes/capacity. Those who came after Gautama are also worthy, and are also the Buddha. It can be easy to fall into thinking that the founder of Buddhism is more than a manifestation of truth, and to think that other liberated beings are necessarily something different or inferior. This is likely why the Mahayana expresses Buddha in three forms, to separate the human from the Dharma itself. I think that answers the question of whether Sidd was "perfect"... he was perfectly enlightened, but other than that we'd be merely judging his ability to teach. Each fully enlightened being is as liberated as Sidd, but with varying capacity.
I pity the teacher who gives a sermon to address a specific desciples difficulties which then gets written down and reproduced as a general teaching.
Dogen got smacked by that a number of times.