Buddha, a myth?
Earthninja
WandererWest Australia Veteran
Hey guys! I felt to just share this topic because of the current climate on this forum and various traditions. Want to see what you guys think.
Firstly I'm on a phone and it's hard to find loads of links so I'm keeping this general and hope you scholars can advise me otherwise.
Ok so we know Sidharta Gautama (Buddha) lived roughly 2500 years ago. His place of birth is dubious at best. Some British explorers found a pillar Northern India saying this was his birth town. Ok so he was around before Jesus anyway. But after Hinduism really kicked off.
Anyway so he allegedly left his wife and child and studied under all the local masters. Who I'm sure were yogis of some sorts. He talks about obtaining the jhanas etc. Dhyana sometimes described. But he found this wasn't ultimate reality.
Anyway so he eventually meditated under the Bodhi tree at 31? And woke up. Then went on to teach others and it all started.
Ok I'm cool with all this BUT, the teachings have been past down verbally (anyone know how long?) before they were written down.
In two different languages, Pali and Sanskrit. Then the schools came up. All different. Then the English translations came. Again some Sanskrit words don't even have enlish translations! It's a close estimate.
Imagine memorising The Lord of the rings and then verbally passing it down through god knows how many generations. Then translating it into English. And yet we argue about what the Buddha said?
We throw quotes at each other to prove our points from "Lord Buddha" who really knows what he said.
Plus as far as I know the only "Buddhist meditation" is Vipassana Vipashyana.
Anapannasati is has yogic origins and likely to have been taught to the Buddha. A yoga teacher told me Buddha was originally a yogi.
So when we do breath work, it's yoga. Which is 3000 years old. They believe Buddha was just one of many Buddhas. (I've heard) not certain.
Dhyan became chan became zen. Again Hindu origins.
My point to all this is that is it really wise to believe anything the Buddha said? Because he may not have said 99% of it. Like Chinese whispers. Even the 8 fold path isn't really a path. It kind of goes in circles. Which is fine but doesn't tell us how to wake up. Could of been all the yoga he did. "Which most Buddhists never mention"
You've got to trust something right? It has to be a case of finding out what's real and what's not real. Guidlines are helpful at the start but if truth is your goal then what is happening now is all that matters. What do we truly know to be real? You'll find not much...
this isn't a hating post on Buddhism, all religions are in a similar boat I'm sure, but it's more relevant to discuss it here. I'm thankful for the teachings but I feel some actually point people away from reality
Comments
By following the teachings, many practitioners have improved the situation for themselves and others.
As the dharma moves West it will invariably lose dogma, passive acceptance of authority and tradition, accept from those who value these above interior experience. A continual historic process.
The test of dharma is does it work to alleviate suffering/Dukkha.
It does.
Within any tradition, the call on formula and a graduated spiritual science comes across a random chaotic variable. That variable is us.
We are the myth. We feel we are understanding, studying, practicing, meditating, being supportive etc. That is a myth we continually dispel.
Today is Real.
First of all, @Earthninja , please give us an accurate, succinct and detailed definition of what you term as 'reality'. Because as I understand it, the only reality that truly exists is the precise moment you're in.
Secondly, please indicate which specific teachings you are referring to, that actually point people away from your definition of 'reality'.
Thanks.
@federica cool, reality is what we are experiencing now. Raw experiencing without the mind conceptualising it. Eg. "I saw a flower" is a belief. Not currently existential. But the actual sight or seeing is reality.
So sight, touch,smell,taste,feeling,thoughts. But not the content of thoughts. Is reality, In my definition in this context. Direct experience.
Which teachings point away? I could say any that don't refer to the above but to clarify with some main examples. Rebirth, the pure lands, devas, merits, any other manner of belief structure, even the 8 fold path and karma for most people. They don't even know what they are yet we believe in them. We take it on credibility from a guy who lived 2500 years ago who didn't even write down what he said.
I think you're strolling into a whole world of crap with this one, @Earthninja.
I think @Jason may be able to comment on this.
Scriptures passed down word for word, as an oral tradition, very often are a lot more reliable than the written versions.... but I'll let our scholarly and highly well-read forum "genius" take this up with you.
Why?
How do you figure that? You try passing down a book verbally for 2500 yours. So in the year 5015 someone in another language will understand it? And on a topic that is hard enough to explain to someone in person.
There are many perspectives from which this could be approached, but to use your perspective on reality:
You read about Buddha, but you haven't directly experienced him as your own reality, so you wonder how real or how accurate the writings are. I submit that it is more useful to ask a slightly different question. Not is Buddha real, but are the teachings real? In your own experience, does suffering exist? Is it connected to your attachments? Can your attachments be brought under your control? Does following the 8-fold path reduce your suffering?
I suspect you'll find that your own direct experience exactly matches the teachings. If so, you won't have to keep worrying about how many Buddhas there were or when the materials were written. It doesn't matter if Buddha left his family or Jesus met the woman at the well or if George Washington cut down the cherry tree. It matters if Buddhism, in your direct experience, works.
Try it and see. You don't need credibility or contemporaneous corroboration. You just need to try it. Then you will know.
As I understand it and I am not a scholar so do not take my word for it.
There was a division of the tradition while oral. It then got written down in Pali and in Chinese that were separate for a long time. Comparing the two it is possible to see that they are essentially the same.
Eeer what? You keep going in circles? But why? Work in a spiral. Then you get somewhere. No joke.
And why on earth do you think that the Path does not lead to unbinding? Then why practise at all?
If you are going to cultivate it seems you need to straighten some things out.
I would be happy to help. Just PM me if you really want my help.
Cheers
Victor
The oral tradition was highly formalised and would have involved groups of monks working together to ensure accuracy. So certainly not "Chinese whispers".
But I'm not sure what the point of your post really is. It sounds like you have doubts about the Buddhist path? That's quite common, though I suspect the only way you're really going to resolve those doubts is to practice Buddhism for a period of time and see if it works for you. That's really the message of the Kalama Sutta.
Because as @Steve_B pointed out, you're actually asking the wrong question...
You're missing the point.
If I memorise something, I don't have to pass it down for 2,500 years. I just have to pass it on to someone younger.
Religious people can recite whole tomes of scriptures, passages, lessons and teachings from memory.... That's how 'oral traditions' thrive.
How do you suppose people memorise whole tracts of suttas? through being taught them, and repeating them, time, and time and time again, the same way you would with a play script, or a nursery rhyme...
I am still reciting, to my grandson, the same nursery rhymes my grandparents were reciting to my father and mother... and they in turn, learnt them at their parents' knees.
You don't need to pass anything down looking ahead for millennia... the essential thing is that the next generation knows them as well as you....
I think I beat around the bush a fair bit when I write long posts. I try and clarify what I mean by writing more but maybe that's what is confusing.
What I doubt is the credibility of what people take to be true regarding the buddhist path. I can definitely see some things in the path are true but a lot seem very "tainted" by influences over the generations. And we throw these around as facts.
My point in this is to bring up a discussion about a possibility that a lot of the Buddhist ways have turned into a religion that isn't really different from other religions. That we take things on blind faith and say this is how it is. Or this is what the Buddha said! But we really have no idea, but won't admit it.
There's nothing really personal in all this, I just wanted to see what you guys thought about all this. Like Buddha being a yogi etc.
What sparked this off was @Victorious and @federica debating about what Buddha said about devas/god belief in Pali and Sanskrit.
And it made we wonder going back even further if he actually said these things at all. And what it has to do with reality.
The second thing that preceded this was I met a Tibetan buddhist teacher, absolutely fantastic lady who had been buddhist since she was 17. Her house is practically a temple.
But she was talking to me about Buddhism and the schools, she then went on to say how Tibetan Buddhism was the fast track to enlightenment with such conviction it made me take a double take. She went onto describe to me how it was the superior school etc.
Absolutely lovely woman, I just felt she was really really indoctrinated. If anybody suggested anything different to what she believes it would be met with firm resistance.
If we put all these beliefs aside and meet in sincere honesty with one another we might be onto something right. Talking from our experiences rather than dogma.
I also have the flu and I'm in bed. Put these last three paragraphs together and that's the back story of why I'm posting this. Haha
But do we really need to know who said it, who wrote it, who translated it, and when? We trust the distributive property of multiplication because it works. Have you ever challenged its origin?
Yes, it is wise because the Buddhas also said "Find out for yourself". He never asked for blind faith.
Shakyamuni buddha's disciples were not ordinary people to say the least to begin with. The sutras begin with "this is what I heard", this means they did not select as sutra if ONE arhat does not agree with the accuracy of the teachings even if 999 arhats agree with the accuracy. even just In korean his teachings were recorded as prints and passed down for 1600(in Chinese translation. I don't have the accurate year but roughly) years so its not like its been passed down orally for 2500 years. His teachings are just an tip of the ice burg compared to what he knows, what buddhas know. Buddhas know what gods don't know. Buddhas earn their Ten epithets of the Buddha. If there is a good english explanation info on Ten epithets of the Buddha I will bring it next time. I wish I have a good korean english buddhism word dictionary. Its so hard to say anything in english because the words are not translated correctly and I don't know most of the important buddhism words in english.
sorry for my terrible explanation, I tried...
Over time (and perhaps the growth of laziness), I have come to see things this way: All of Buddhism -- and I do mean ALL of it -- is a pack of lies and self-serving fantasy. It is up to the student to discern and actualize the truth it is lying about.
That's just it. It doesn't really matter if Buddha woke up in Sidhartha or if he was born in India or Nepal. It doesn't matter if he was the son of a king or if there were visions of his birth and life.
The message is what matters. The 4NTs and the 8fold can stand on their own and do not depend on the messengers identity to work.
For me, if it doesn't further my understanding of the 4 and the 8 then it is mere distraction.
I know the dharma has helped me widen my circle of compassion and has helped me to lessen my suffering. Everything else is just ribbons and bows.
If the teachings work then there is Buddha.
If not we are wasting our time.
Got something better to do?
We all have beliefs, some of which can be quite dogmatic. If you know of a way of letting them go which works better than Buddhist practice please do say.
Exactly so.
Discerning and actualizing truth does not come from the form (which I seem to remember is empty anyhow) it comes despite the emptiness having a form.
What form does that entail. For me being here, meditating, showing compassion and kindness for those attached to Buddha Form, form filling dharma and teachings void of emptying our attachments ...
... iz plan ...
Well seeing them as dogma and not a fact is a great start. You don't need a practice, you just got to look (with honesty)
To take things on blind faith is not neccessary.
If there was a Buddha or not is irrelevant. There are the suttas and those we can read today for ourselves. This is the only thing anybody can know for sure.
These suttas is much like a textbook in school in chemistry or physics. They have theory and then description of experiments to see how the theory works.
When and if you try the experiments and see the result you can see for yourself if the theory is sound.
So no need for blind belief in anything but your own skill and faculties.
Does that sound ok?
So hop to it then grasshopper.
We weren't debating we were having a row.
I have run into the same kind of fanaticism in the Theravada camp. So there are obviously ... hrm ... "miss led" people in all kind of walks in life!
/Victor
This has to be one of the most idiotic things you've said.
First of all, the Buddha exhorted us to put faith in nothing, unless we had tested it and practised it for ourselves, and tested it for worthiness and sound logic.
Hardly Dogma.
Secondly, please point to any of the Buddha's teachings (where he specifically discourages personal discernment, investigation and validation, but insists he is right) which are not facts.
"Look with honesty" ....?
How do you develop this honesty without discernment?
How do you develop this honesty without evaluation, discussion and calculation?
WHat kind of honesty do you mean, and how do you develop it, exactly?
Delightfully astute... though personally I think I would err on the side of 'guesstrapolation' as opposed to 'lie', so as to mitigate the generic implication of malicious intent.
Wait a minute here - are we (as the thread title implies) questioning the actual existence of the Buddha, or are we skilfully tearing his teachings to bits and scrutinising them?
Even the first post seems confused.
And here's where it gets mixed up....
So which is, exactly?
Whether the guy is authentic, or whether the teachings are?
Could you please clarify your original intention, @Earthninja ?
There are a lot of ways to approach this topic, I think. The first way is to approach it scientifically and try to gather as much physical evidence as we can about the Buddha's existence, life, and teachings. Archaeological evidence of that nature is admittedly scant, however. We have a few ancient stupas, a few ancient shrines, some ancient edicts erected by King Asoka, etc.
But we can also approach these teachings analytically; and the system of thought and practices attributed to the Buddha is extremely complex, consistent, and foreshadows much of what we've come to understand about the way the mind works. And after years of study, I've come to the conclusion that these teachings stem from a single source (or sources), which may very well have been the Buddha himself.
If one were to analyze other religious texts, such as the Bible or the Mahabharata, for example, there's evidence of layers of authorship (even in places where there's traditionally said to be only one author), and you can literally trace the evolution of these texts via changes in style, grammar, and content. The core of the Pali Canon, on the other hand, which forms the basis of Theravada Buddhism and is generally considered by scholars to be one of the closest thing we have to what the Buddha actually taught, shows evidence of originating from a single source through its consistency of content. As Prof. Richard Gombrich puts it, "I find (as Buddhists have always found) that the central part of the Canon... presents such originality, intelligence, grandeur and - most relevantly - coherence, that it is hard to see it as a composite works" (Theravada Buddhism, p. 20).
And it may just be wishful thinking on my part, but I believe this is mainly due to the fact that the Buddha (or whomever these teachings originated from that we label as such) was a superbly gifted teacher, and that, despite evidence of later additions and modifications, much of what was taught seems to have been faithfully passed down by devotees and practitioners throughout the centuries via a combination of memorization, recitation, and written texts scrutinized at various councils.
That, of course, gets into the question of the reliability of oral traditions. The oral transmission of sacred knowledge and texts were common during that time in India (as they were in many other cultures throughout history, including here in the US), and the method of oral transmission itself can be quite reliable and has its own checks and balances. That doesn't mean, of course, that things can't be added, edited, or removed; but I don't think the fact that the teachings were originally transmitted orally means that they're all bogus or that we can weed out some of the additions and edits through the comparison of various early texts from multiple sources and traditions.
Whatever its origins, though, I, like Prof. Gombrich, "believe that the Buddha [or whomever got the wheel spinning] was an intellectual genius and had some extraordinarily interesting things to say." I'd go even further than this and venture to say that many of the teachings passed down to us are as relevant now as they were 2,500 years ago, offering tools and guidance in the search for a happiness that's not dependent upon outer conditions or favourable circumstances, for true peace of mind.
And that gets to what I think is the most important proof, the empirical proof that the Buddha himself suggested: put these things into practice and see where they lead. If you find them helpful, then great, stick with them. Who cares if the Buddha was a real person is these teachings really help to increase our happiness and reduce our suffering? And if not, then put them down and walk away.
That we take things on blind faith and say this is how it is...
@Earthninja , I like this thread. Speaking for myself, I do not take things on blind faith, nor do I accept dogma, as it seems, perhaps some Buddhists do. I know, that for me, I have demonstrated to myself that my practice has reduced the suffering in my life and for me, that is enough. That being said, in the context of esoteric discussion, it seems to me your question is a valid one...
@zero -- I prefer the word "lie" ... it strikes me as both more offensive (attention-grabbing) and closer to any truth that will prove both intimate and useful.
In support of your mitigation, however, is the following verse (sorry, I can't cite the exact source... I know we used to chant it in a Zen setting):
@Earthninja
If you are sick in bed with the flu, maybe this might be a good time to reverse engineer your question of the Buddha's existence by exploring the practice attributed to him.
"Looking with honesty" is not a bad description of Buddhist insight practice, eg the second factor of enlightenment which is investigation.
This is my personal work in progress! I have a tendency towards the 'offensive / attention grabbing' too - it has been said to me as a criticism that often my most compelling statements are delivered so starkly as to make them exactly uncompelling! I suppose for myself, I take no prisoners but in any event and admittedly only recently, I have attempted to address this tendency to ruffle feathers as my intention is not to add to issues!
Thank you - "...has playfully let words escape his golden mouth"
Wonderfully put.
There is a reality even prior to heaven and earth;
Indeed, it has no form, much less a name;
Eyes fail to see it; It has no voice for ears to detect;
To call it Mind or Buddha violates its nature,
For it then becomes like a visionary flower in the air;
It is not Mind, nor Buddha;
Absolutely quiet, and yet illuminating in a mysterious way,
It allows itself to be perceived only by the clear-eyed.
It is Dharma truly beyond form and sound;
It is Tao having nothing to do with words.
Wishing to entice the blind,
The Buddha has playfully let words escape his golden mouth;
Heaven and earth are ever since filled with entangling briars.
O my good worthy friends gathered here,
If you desire to listen to the thunderous voice of the Dharma,
Exhaust your words, empty your thoughts,
For then you may come to recognize this One Essence.
Says Hui the Brother, "The Buddha's Dharma
Is not to be given up to mere human sentiments."
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/mzb/mzb05.htm
I read that he was 35 when he attained the deathless and became a Buddha, and meditation didn't lead him to awakening, he discovered the middle way, and he saw that it gives rise to vision and knowledge, and leads to peace, to Nirvana. Discovering and following the middle way led him to awakening.
Each school takes the part of the Buddha's path that it best likes and sees that as the key to the Buddha's awakening.
When we habitually grasp after, push away or ignore anything....suffering has arrived.
Just so. It is not the person but the Law, the doctrine, the teaching which matters. Does it make sense? Does it work when applied? Is it beneficial? I practice Buddhism because it proves itself without fail.
The proof is in the pudding. If it doesn't work, blind faith won't make it work.
0nly through practice and study and an honest open mind can we develop what we call real faith. It most certainly is not "The book said it, I believe it, end of subject".
Peace to all.
@silver ... "Thanks," he said, blushing that he was too damned lazy to look it up himself.
Siddhartha Buddha isn't the only Buddha there were Buddha before him and after as well.
You may find a Buddha in this present world or try to cross check sutras with own experience.
Samass Buddha is the one who attained the truth with own efforts. We may also benefit from texts.
Well meditation is not a vedik practice nor hindu. It is called as Shramana. The Jains and Buddhist belongs to shramana tradition and lord parshvanath was the first one tirthkar of Jain. There was no thing such as Hinduism. The hindu is term used for people living in India by invaders.
Jains were meditating before but Buddha also argued with them and put different opinion about proper way of life.
@federica said >@Earthninja said: Well >seeing them as dogma and not a fact is a great start. You don't need a practice, you just got to look (with honesty)
Hardly Dogma."
Ok then the four noble truths isn't necessarily true? Yet people quote it too each other like it is a fact. That's my whole point.
You don't know what the Buddha said, you don't know he was even alive, you don't know if the four noble truths are true.
Nobody admits the above to themselves, sure his teachings could be bang on the mark as many have expressed through practice.
If I said the cessation to suffering is nirvana, is that a true statement?
I'm not an Arahant so I can't say this honestly. That's what I mean by taking things on blind faith.
@federica
What's the problem with that? Why all the resistance? This isn't personal at all.
To me, the Buddha has the same reality that Don Juan Matus has. I have no idea whether he existed or not. Or how much of the material attributed to him was actually spoken by him.
As @nevermind liked to say, " it doesn't need to be true, it just needs to be meaningful". (Damn him!)
Reminds me of another story about another questioner saying they won't have an arrow removed from there backside until the real shooter can be identified.
The point isn't the questioning.
It's suffering un necessarily because one thinks that the originator of the arrow needs to be identified before it can be dealt with.
My path is pretty much meditation oriented and I also have little connection to the faith/devotional approach to Buddhist practice..
but...
need only observe those that choose that path to concede how it works for them.
Shakyamuni buddha's teaching is the greatest gift to all human but if anyone doesn't want that gift, let them be. The more we talk about this kind of subject the more harm to the one's ( non believer's) "buddha seed"(, which we all have btw).
Critical analysis is part of our practice [lobster faints] which means examining the three jewels, the Noble truths, rebath of the soul we don't have etc.
Faith dharma based on 'the last words of Santa Clause Buddha', 'lama knows best', 'sutras are perfection' is a little (what is the kind word?) simplistic/gullible/trite ... mmm ...
... next people will be listening to ancient aneroxics for dietary tips ...
OP, I don't think he was a myth. Somebody had to kick off the monastic tradition, and come up with the 4NT's & 8-fold Path. Was some of his life mythologized? Definitely. Do we know for sure which sutras represent his words, and which don't? No. But more evidence is coming to light (the Gandhari scrolls, for example), so over time, we'll be able to know more about the process that led to composing the canon as it is today, and that may shed light on what is close to authentic, and what isn't. It's a work in progress.
Still, I think the basic principles are safe to assume to be authentic, and that's always a good place to start practicing--with the basics.
Thanks for the great posts guys, I know most of you seem to be switched on and investigate rather than take this stuff as fact.
Many people don't however and I must admit I fell victim to and probably still do to beliefs.
Take karma for instance, we can ram Suttas down each other's throats but what does it mean to YOU? Experientially? Do you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt what it is? If not, then find out. Most people here seem to be on the path of finding out.
hello OP! I am sure you already know but I would like to put emphasis on buddhism is not just about knowledge of Buddha's teaching, he left teachings as a guidance for us but we have to find it out for ourselves and that is the reason why we do practice. Studying sutras will not give us that realization(experience). I can try to describe the taste of a mango to who's never tasted it but he has to bite the mango to know what it really taste like. To save someone drowning in the river, one has to know how to swim by actually swimming in the water not by reading a text book about how to swim.
Without a shadow of a doubt I do believe everything what buddha had left as teachings (and I got to believe them by experience but no one will believe it even if I say it ) but he also said most of his teachings were skillful means. He left Lotus Sutra for the real truth. As for my experience I am hoping to tell you how I overcome my difficulty of the lifetime so please wait for me!( I am working on it) so far I got over most of my mental problems and physical illness through practice. as for One last thing I am still trying to overcome, I am working on it everyday. Hope this make sense to you even a little bit because I really do hope you will enter the buddha way, its the best thing ever!
wishing you health and happiness through buddha's teaching because that is the real happiness : )
As for karma, we are living the karma of our previous lives. Everything that appears to be us in this present life is the result of our past karma. We were born this way because of the karma. We are now making our next life in this life. I know this might be hard to believe but its so true.
Hi @KarikoPuppies ! waves
Many people have different definitions of karma, this is what I'm referring to. Have you actually experienced your past life? Or is it belief?
Have you experienced your future life?
Reality is tangible right? We can experience reality through one or more senses. That is called direct experience.
Most people haven't a clue what karma is in direct experience. They have been told that this life is a result of previous lives. They believe this but haven't experienced it.
You might have
It's not hard to believe, I'm just saying belief gets people into trouble.
I hope you are happy and well my friend!
I think most people do, it just takes a bit of honest reflection on past behaviour and current experience. It really isn't rocket science.
We are the heirs to our actions and we live with the consequences, that principle applies day to day, year to year and potentially lifetime to lifetime.
And believing in homeopathy! [gasp]
Bit vague mate, that's a very very general idea. You could just rename it cause and effect.
I think it's way subtler and has more to do with memory than action. But hey that's just my experience of it.
@Earthninja -- At the risk of being repetitive ... I once asked my Zen teacher what role hope and belief played in Buddhist practice. He said, "For the first four or five years [of practice], belief and hope are necessary." And after four or five years, I asked. "After four or five years, they are not so necessary."
As I heard him, he was not dissing hope and belief -- putting them in some lesser or less-distinguished category. He was simply recognizing their role: Belief, ipso facto, means doubt and clarity is indubitable. Belief and hope light the fires. Belief and hope inspire people to practice. Belief and hope light the fuse. It's neither better nor worse: It's just a fact of life.
But practice builds experience and experience trumps belief and hope. No one who knows how to ride a bicycle bothers with believing or hoping s/he might ride a bicycle. S/he just rides. In one sense, belief and hope are off the mark. But they have a role to play and there's no use pretending they don't. But by the same token there is no reason to be swept up in belief and hope to the extent of twisting anyone else's arm, let alone your own. Belief and hope, in their time, is just where things are at ... no biggie: Just do what you can not to run your programs on anyone else: This is what YOU believe; this is what YOU hope. That is enough. If you find yourself trying to convince someone else, that is a good reminder to rein in this horse.
And practice.
Bit by bit the practice tells you what you want to know. It introduces you to your longtime neighbor and friend. It's nothing special -- what the hell ... you have always been friends, always been neighbors -- but things just make better sense. Practice dispenses with belief and hope. It lightens the load. No need to waste time ... just look back and remember that belief and hope were once useful and it's OK ... but it is not so necessary.
That's more than a bit vague @Earthninja but "karma" literally means "action" or "doing".
I'm not sure how your premise would work as we still have to face the consequences of an action even if we've forgotten doing it.
Karma only differs from causation in terms of morality as far as I can tell.