Is it possible that Buddha was

techie

speaking to an audience and so had to make compromises?

for instance, new testament is diff. from old - forgiveness vs punishment, compassion vs anger and so on. Yet Jesus spoke of god, religion, etc. because he had to speak the language of the audience (and an Israeli audience at that time believed in those things). Would the same logic apply to Buddha? Let's say Buddha was like Epicurus and had no belief or interest in gods, afterlife, karma, rebirth, etc. But because his audience at that time believed in karma, rebirth, gods, heaven/hell realms, did he reluctantly include all that in his teaching? Is that possible?

So what I am saying is, was buddha more like Epicurus but simply included religious stuff to please a Hindu/Indian audience?

genkaku

With age and without disparagement, I have come to the conclusion that all spiritual formats are manipulative, finagling, fairy tales. No matter how pure the presentation or motivation, still formats and the people who broadcast them remain at some distance from whatever truth they claim to proclaim. It's not good or bad, it's just the lay of the land.

The important part is that those wooed and won under whatever fairy-tale banner by whatever snake-oil salesman are constrained to find out for themselves what the truth of the matter is. Anything less than such a personal actualization is just dogma ... another page in a fairy-tale book.

So, did Gautama tailor his messages? Sure he did. Does this affect the effort any acolyte might expend? Not in the least.

Just my two cents, obviously.

karasti

It seems that if it is true that Buddha was enlightened he wouldn't tell what would be considered falsehoods in order to cater to his audience. There are ways to help people understand without manipulating them. But, we really don't have a clue how accurate Buddha's teachings are written (long after he died) versus what was said, nor do we usually know much about the audience of each of his teachings. When I talk about Buddhism, I don't do so from a Christian point of view because I am talking to a Christian. I might make a comparison, though. Also, a lot of the God/diety stuff in Buddhism didn't even come from Buddha, it came from later teachings in other cultures, such as Tibet.

In any case, I think random such things all the time and always ask myself how much it really matters and if it impacts my beliefs or even more importantly, my practice. Sometimes our brains get stuck in cycles of noodling over things that just truly don't matter.

seeker242

@techie said:
speaking to an audience and so had to make compromises?

Going with yes! As he gave very different teaching to monks vs laypersons. For example, he told monks it's very good to abstain from sense pleasures like sex, good food, etc.. But, he very rarely said that to laypeople.

Let's say Buddha was like Epicurus and had no belief or interest in gods, afterlife, karma, rebirth, etc. But because his audience at that time believed in karma, rebirth, gods, heaven/hell realms, did he reluctantly include all that in his teaching? Is that possible?

Technically no that's not possible because that would be an extraordinary amount of lying. And a Buddha, by definition, does not tell falsehoods.

federica

@techie said:
speaking to an audience and so had to make compromises?

for instance, new testament is diff. from old - forgiveness vs punishment, compassion vs anger and so on. Yet Jesus spoke of god, religion, etc.

First of all, the Old Testament is a book held sacred more by Jews than Christians. In fact, the first 5 books form the Torah. The OT is more... a narrative, and doesn't feature prominently as a document of worship. Christians focus more on the NT. And many times, Jesus says "You have heard it said..." (such-and-such an OT teaching)..."But verily I say unto you..." (Contradiction follows).

...because he had to speak the language of the audience (and an Israeli audience at that time believed in those things).

Yes, but he taught a New Way of seeing things; ways which went against the ancient religious instructions. That's why ultimately he was crucified. Because he committed the cardinal error of contradicting the Old Ways....

Would the same logic apply to Buddha? Let's say Buddha was like Epicurus and had no belief or interest in gods, afterlife, karma, rebirth, etc. But because his audience at that time believed in karma, rebirth, gods, heaven/hell realms, did he reluctantly include all that in his teaching? Is that possible?

Have you heard the teaching of the Simsapa leaves?
The Buddha did not touch on many teachings and things he knew, because they were not relevant to the relief of Suffering.

So what I am saying is, was buddha more like Epicurus but simply included religious stuff to please a Hindu/Indian audience?

No. I don't believe the Buddha would INclude or EXclude anything, to please anyone. Hence his teachings to the Kalamas.

Lionduck

After reviewing different sutras - He did both. He taught to the capacity of his audiences and he established a whole new way of thinking, a whole new paradigm.

And no, he was not like Epicurus. He began with what people knew and understood and cultivated his teachings and his followers, bringing them to entirely new ways of thinking and acting.

The 'religion' of the Buddha was/is one of enabling, ennobling; one of empowerment and engagement...

Peace to all

Jeffrey

Yes and Buddhas first audience was in deer park to spiritual yogis who had renounced sense pleasures (for years) and spent many years meditating studying and highly devoted.

Nowadays the teachers in the west are trying to find new ways to teach the dharma to people in the western world.

I don't agree with genkaku that Buddhism is snake oil. I think it is just trying to understand the mind. There are teachers at 'different levels' and yes there are also corrupt teachers. You can see for yourself if the teacher is good for you or not.

Shoshin

Thus "I" have heard, the Buddha left 84,000 teachings - according to the mental and spiritual capacity of each individual)

"Because Sakyamuni Buddha taught in a very personal manner, it is said that he gave 84,000 messages during his lifetime.The number 84,000 is probably arbitrary. However, it is meant to convey the idea that the Buddha exhausted all the possible ways for humanity to reach enlightenment. The number of paths is an expression of the universality of the Buddha-Dharma. Within the 84,000 paths, one path is most suited to you. "
http://www.dharmanet.org/coursesM/Shin/JodoShinshu2.htm

lobster

@techie said:
Is it possible that Buddha was
speaking to an audience and so had to make compromises?

Yes.
According to tradition:

According to a story in the Āyācana Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya VI.1) — a scripture found in the Pāli and other canons — immediately after his awakening, the Buddha debated whether or not he should teach the Dharma to others. He was concerned that humans were so overpowered by ignorance, greed and hatred* that they could never recognise the path, which is subtle, deep and hard to grasp. However, in the story, Brahmā Sahampati convinced him, arguing that at least some will understand it. The Buddha relented, and agreed to teach.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha#Awakening

• humans were so overpowered by ignorance, greed and hatred - yep that pretty well describes me for one ...

Transmission is not straightforward.
Takes a while, takes practice, takes effort.
http://dharmawisdom.org/teachings/articles/fundamental-dharma-teachings

Dhammika

Indeed. Wandering off the path, trudging back to it...