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.
How solid was the Buddha?
ajani_mgo
Veteran
Well this question might be a little offensive.. But then I realized that when we follow a path, we forget something, that is to question the existence of whoever.
OK so here is it. How true is the Buddha? Had he really even existed? Were his teachings nothing but fabricated by somebody else and credited to a fictional character? Or even a big conspiracy?
I know there are some relics of the Buddha's tooth surviving today. One of them is going to rest in Singapore pernamently soon. Construction for this Buddha Tooth Temple has been going on for quite some time in Singapore now. One thing I hate is that it's simply going to be worshipped by Taoists and Chinese Buddhists like heaven... But that's not the point.
There have been some very daring shows on Discovery Channel where so-called remains of religious figures have been put to the test via DNA, carbon-dating, forensic science, logic and alot others. Could this be done on those Buddha relics? I mean it would be really interesting. At least it'd seperate the myths from the facts. The documentation of the Buddha tooths have been very poorly-done. Potentially hundreds of years of history cannot be found on the tooth's whereabouts, then it just appears somewhere.
Note here that I personally won't care even if all the tooths are fake. Even if you prove it to me that Buddha never existed, I would still follow the Eightfold.
But the key question here is that, was there really a Shakyamuni? Where is the Shakya Clan today? And was there ever a study on his existence?
OK so here is it. How true is the Buddha? Had he really even existed? Were his teachings nothing but fabricated by somebody else and credited to a fictional character? Or even a big conspiracy?
I know there are some relics of the Buddha's tooth surviving today. One of them is going to rest in Singapore pernamently soon. Construction for this Buddha Tooth Temple has been going on for quite some time in Singapore now. One thing I hate is that it's simply going to be worshipped by Taoists and Chinese Buddhists like heaven... But that's not the point.
There have been some very daring shows on Discovery Channel where so-called remains of religious figures have been put to the test via DNA, carbon-dating, forensic science, logic and alot others. Could this be done on those Buddha relics? I mean it would be really interesting. At least it'd seperate the myths from the facts. The documentation of the Buddha tooths have been very poorly-done. Potentially hundreds of years of history cannot be found on the tooth's whereabouts, then it just appears somewhere.
Note here that I personally won't care even if all the tooths are fake. Even if you prove it to me that Buddha never existed, I would still follow the Eightfold.
But the key question here is that, was there really a Shakyamuni? Where is the Shakya Clan today? And was there ever a study on his existence?
0
Comments
However,to me,as a Muslim,We have to go through our faith with no sense of regret or second thoughts.The fact that we chose that religion means that we belive in that religion.Thus,we do not try to question our own faith,our own orgin.
Me,as a Muslim,find myself respecting everyone here,regardless of your religion.The fact that here we are despite our hectic outsied lives,We find ourselves discussing about reigion.This means that we have strong faith in ourselves,in our religion.
Thus,Ajani,with all due respect,I belive that sometimes Science and Religion should be mixed.Let not other worldly factors affect our faith in our religion.
May Our Faith In Our Religion Remain Strong.
Let Not Established systems of Lies Hide that Complicated truth.
Thank you for coming in. please feel free to enter in all and any discussions. The more the merrier. Nice post.
You are very welcome here
Ajani -
To me... this is a good question.
I would like to know the truth. But, even with Buddhism - everything that we have was written down 200 or 300 years after Buddha's passing. That being said, we're left to how dedicated the followers of Buddha were at that time to put things down clearly and concisely - the "true" and "actual" sayings of Buddha. Without the "ego" of "I was Buddha's most devout follower and this is what he meant, damnit!"
'No.....! I was Buddha's most devout following and THIS is what he meant by that!"
That being said - on some elements that involve the more "mystical" elements of Buddha's statements - I question them a bit.
But, if nothing else, even if the teachings of the Four Noble Truths and the EightFold Path were not written down, jot and tittle, to what Buddha said - they still seem, to me, good teachings.
As for the tooths and such - I find that stuff funny actually.
Christianity went through that phase with pieces of the sword that pierced Christ's side, his robe that was taken from him, fragments of the cross, the cup from the last supper.
It amazes me that people would rather spend their entire life chasing through old pieces of metal and wood (or teeth!) rather than take to heart the teachings of the person. What is a tooth going to get you? Buddha even said he wasn't a god - therefore, it's just a tooth. If I wanted to enshrine something - I've got a whole bunch of them in my head that I could build shrines around.
In doing so, I could have many, many shrines all built around my tooth - and I could still be a cold and uncaring fool.
-bf
Ar.Aid,
Please make yourself at home here. We are happy to have you join our discussions!
Jason
It is good to have you here. There is just too little Islamic/Buddhist dialogue that I have been able to find. Far less than between Christians and Buddhists.
There are some interesting parallels between Sufism and Buddhism and the use of silent prayer. My own practice has often been illuminated by the works of Rumi or Omar the Tent-maker.
In fact, I think he just went platinum!
...
Seriously though, I have no idea, nor do I have any proof that he existed as described in the Suttas - if at all.
But, the teachings that are attributed to him are absolutely amazing. The ones that I don't understand right away, or have doubts about, grab my attention later on with new insightfulness and wisdom which I cannot believed I ever missed. The more attention I pay to myself with awareness, combined with constant reflection on the Suttas, the more truth I see in these profound words. The words themselves may be imperfect, but once you "see" what they are trying to convey...you just can't help but respect them for their unbelievable clarity.
When people take refuge in the Buddha they are taking refuge in something solid - Dhamma.
Jason
Here I remember something the Buddha said.. I think he mentioned something about rely on the teachings not the teacher... Or was it? Either way it's a damm good answer...
About the Jesus's side thingy, it's a spear. Recently Discovery also did a forensic test on this legendary spear. They took itfrom its holding in Vienna and did some stuff to it. They concluded that there wasn't a single trace of blood there, though the attachments of the blade did come from the attributed centuries their respective owners lived in. Thus I think it might be that popular fable had made this spear seem like it really was a symbol of Jesus's crucification, and thus... You know the rest.
Well I really look forward to the day where such tests would be conducted. And also, Argon is an excellent and model Muslim... I know him personally, he's the best friend I speak of often, and we are like the jokers of the class, making everyone laugh...
I look forward to reading more of your comments and learning from your insights as a Muslim and yourself.
One of my favorite lines by Rumi is: "There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground."
Anyway, in the discussion, many westerners were against the idea of building the statue, saying that the money could be better used to feed and educate poor people rather than build a big statue. Many easterners, on the other hand, said that the merit the project would generate was much more valuable and would transform peoples' lives much more profoundly than food and schooling. They focused more on the effect that seeing such an incredible thing would have on the viewers.
The project is still going on: www.maitreyaproject.org (Coincidentally, it will be the home to the largest collection of buddhist relics, which are currently on tour around the world--surely to generate support for the project and spread merit.)
What interests me is how faith and proof are so often put against each other. We often think that one threatens or endangers the other. But, in fact, both are so important, and they have to work together, they have to inspire each other. We need faith so we can extend beyond our own limits, to realize larger truthes than what we can currently fathom. Many of the teachings in Buddhism--such as karma or the absence of self--are things that have incredible depth, and sometimes we can only see deeper into them after we have waded in to a certain depth by first suspending doubt. Many teachings only make sense once we are inside them and have some faith in their logic. Then they become a way to prove things. But, on the other hand, we need to check and try to prove things to ourselves at every step along the path. Proof helps us from becoming AiryFairyHippyWisps from the Strata of LaLaLand. (Please excuse my disrespect if any of you are such LaLaLand Wisps.) But, even more importantly, proof helps us create a solid foundation for ourselves, something we can learn to trust and build on.
So, I guess I'm saying we need to embrace both Faith and Proof.
I want to see the results of the carbon dating tests on the tooth, but I also want to extend an openness to accepting such Buddhist beauties as the Prajnaparamita Sutra being a text composed by the Buddha that Nagarjuna got from the dragon librarians in the underwater kingdom of the Nagas.
By the way, I've heard it said that many Buddhist relics aren't really bone or tooth anymore. They transform into diamond-like materials or other things. (On the Maitreya Project page you can actually see images of many of the relics they have on the tour.)
gassho
Yes eastern and western values, the way they think are different. It all boils down to the level of awareness and no party is right or wrong.
Western values are mostly based on short term and at times immediate result, usually concerning only their lifetime. That is why they prefer to use the $ to help others than to build a Buddha statue. Usually this will only help those needed in this life time only.
Eastern values on the contary, tends to see things in long term, often beyond many lifetimes with a stauch believe in karma and rebirth. And in Buddhist scripture, building of a Big Visable Buddha statue will plant a Bubbhahood seed in the minds of people who just happened to look at it. As this is the first important step, because devlving into Buddhism may not happen this life, but after many futures lives when conditions mature. Building Buddha's statue produces enormous positive karma which is far superior than the short term (one life) help.
Off course, we must cultivate wisdom to handle this and have a balance of both. Definitely it is not lawful if sentient beings within reach are desperately in need of resources for survival (life and death) and no one except us are reachable. And if we as Buddhist still tightly hold on the money, staunchly still clinched to the idea for the establishment of Buddha without offerring help and donation. Personally, I don't think we are practising Buddhism.
Yes, they are not the tooth. They can exist in different shapes and colors, multiply or vanish into thin air.
cheers,
That's a good explanation... When I grow up maybe I'll try donating to the project. The project will also help provide proper education and healthcare services to the people there, not to mention the profits of tourism there.
Anyway I have decided yesterday for myself that I'm not going for enlightenment after all... This world might suck, but it has some humanistic stuff to stay for, like helping the poor and stuff like that... It's a little attachment involved here but then I'm staying till Matreiya's coming. I want to become a full arhat, not a simple enlightened mind.
I think it's cool to have representatives from other faiths involved in the discussion - if nothing else, it will help provide truth, insight and enlightenment to the various discussions.
Ajani,
I'm kind of like you, besides having two legs, two arms and strikingly handsome feature, I too don't concern myself with enlightenment.
If I'm in the cycle of rebirth or reincarnation - I figure there must be some larger cosmic thing going on that keeps the whole rebirth/reincar thing going on that will take care of itself.
I'll just worry about taking care of this "self" for the moment.
-bf
This statement really interests me, BF. How do you handle the notion of non-self? I remember that I found it incredibly difficult and I have friends who are intersted in Buddhism but are totally put off by anatman.
Having written the above, I began to review how I actually came to what small understanding I now have. As I look back, it seems to me that I spent at least 5 years reflecting on the First and Second Noble Truths and in practising mindfulness and Metta. Then came a holiday in Britanny where I read 30 books in 3 weeks (Jack wasn't interested in anything but skateboarding and swimming!). Each evening, I would go for a walk in the woods around the campsite, "clicking my beads", i.e. walking to the rhythm of the mantra Om Mane Padme Hum. This was also the holiday after I met a group of Tibetan monks making a sand mandala on Mont Saint Michel, and attended a White Tara initiation (which I still don't understand). It was 4 months after we met HHDL.
I do not know if or how any of these externals affected my understanding.
There is not a single moment where the emptiness of 'self' became apparent (if that isn't a contradiction). Sometime, during those three weeks, it was like one of those "magic eye" pictures and a whole lot of Buddhist notions, chief among them anatman, organised themselves in front of me.
That holiday does mark the end of my direct involvement with any institutional, 'organised' religion and with dogmatic atheism. Both seem just as irrelevant to the business of putting one foot in front of the other.
So, dear friend, I do recall, like a half-remembered pain, how nasty it was to crash, time and again, as I studied Buddhism, against the notion that "I" have no discrete reality.
Well, "self" might have come out as the wrong terminology...
Self if one of those things that is a very slow process for me. Being that Buddhism is relatively new to me - I don't worry about a lot of the more deep, dark and theoretical aspects of Buddha's teachings.
While I understand that "self" is something a person needs to remove from their mindset - the word "self" holds too much misunderstanding and confusion for me.
I look at 'self' as being more of an 'ego' issue. "I don't like this" or "That bothers me" is the things I try to remove.
We're going to be our "selfs" for as long as we exist. Trying to remove a sense of what I am and diminishing into "nothing" is something I can't quite put my arms around. I wake up in the morning with "me" thinking and end up going to bed with "me" thinking. I can't remove my "self" from myself.
But, I can grasp the concept of:
"I don't like this." - "this" will pass. "This" that is being bothered is most likely ego or the inability to realize that "this thing that is bothering me" is only temporary - either for the moment or until I die. Then, as all things, it will pass.
or
"This bothers me" - again, "this" will pass. And this "thing" that is bothering me - is it bothering me because of my own puffed of sense of self or ego? If so, my ego doesn't matter and shouldn't become the driving thing in my life. My puffed up ego and sense of self needs to be removed in this life - or at the very least - tamed into a well behaved pet.
-bf
Analysis of the Aggregates:
"...According to the teaching expounded by the Buddha, beings, so-called, no matter to which plane of existence they belong, are not possessed of any permanent identity, individuality, self, soul or spirit, but are to be considered only as temporary manifestations of several constituents or aggregates which in themselves though constantly changing nevertheless show continuity of process. This, although the expression 'rebirth' is frequently used, it is not to be understood that the same being from one existence is reborn into a future existence by virtue of there being a soul or spirit as the factor providing inherent continuity. It is that, after a period during which a group of aggregates have exhibited their continuity of process in mutal association, they separate, associate again with other appropriate aggregates to produce in a perfectly automatic way a new being, which, although having no direct relationship to its predecessor, by way of a permanent unchanging soul or spirit, is nevertheless the direct outcome of resultants of the activities of that predecessor, and so on. From this very cursory statement of the process of serial existence it is to be appreciated that while this current of constant change takes place there is, by definition, no stability of any kind, and that a so-called being of such structure cannot be regarded as steady, reliable, peaceful, permanent, not subject to change, not subject to ageing, death, sorrow, lamentation, pysical pain, mental pain or despair...
...whatever may be observed or formulated from the behaviour of beings, either in general or in particular, is classified under one or other of the five aggregates, viz., the aggregates of material quality [form], feeling, perception, mental concomitants and consciousness..."
~ R. E. Iggleden, from the introduction to the English translation of the Vibhanga (Book of Analysis - second book of the Abhidhamma Pitaka).
Jason
Stop it.
You're making my head hurt.
-bf
The trick is to 'be turned around' (as the Gospel of Thomas puts it) and notice that there is, in reality, no "I" to like or to be bothered.
What I was describing was something of the process by which I arrived at some understanding of it.
What I did not add is that I have found it extraordinarily liberating!
When we refer to our 'selves', what do we mean? Do we mean this sack of flesh, bones and shit? Do we mean all our memories? Both arise from other causes. Look, look and look again: nothing of that which you imagine you are exists apart from all its causes and consequences.
What is "self" was incorrectly translated? I mean, it's all just verbal bantering at this point, but I have heard of recent translation errors regarding the Bible that makes some of God's miracles - not so miraculous.
For example, the miracle of Moses parting the Red Sea.
Now, it seems, some scholars are thinking that it was really the Rush Sea (a vast area of rushes and swampy area) that the Israelites crossed on foot - much easier than trying to cross a swamp in a chariot...
It's all speculation and at some point you just gotta put your nose to the grindstone and try your best.
Also, we have Buddha's teachings - just because he told somebody about it and they wrote it down doesn't mean they wrote it down correctly!
I mean, let's say that you know nothing of physics. And all of a sudden, you are writing down the teachings of Einstein - but you're doing this years after he actually taught you about physics
Now, obviously, Einstein knew exactly what he was talking about. But, now ... we're not learning what Einstein taught us, but what some guy (who wasn't enlightened or even knew what he was talking about - just regurgitating something he heard and trying to write it down in his limited enlightenment) trying his best to write down what he thought Einstein was saying...
Get my drift?
-bf
As I said before, the Buddhist notion of non-self (anatman) is one whilch presents enormous problems, especially for Westerners with our insistence on individual value.
But don't take my word, or the Buddha's, or anyone else's: look into your self and find whatever there may be there that you can truly find that is permanent, non-contingent. Only you can do this for yourself.
That could be very true, however, the translation of anatta (no-soul/not-self) is correct. We know this because of the similarities between Pali and Sanskrit for one thing. Atta (atman in Sanskrit) means self or soul, a permanent essence. Adding an an to the beginning makes this negative.
So, Pali: atta = self, anatta = not-self
Sanskrit: atman = self, anatman = not-self
Sanskrit never completely died out as Pali did, so we are able to compare meanings and concepts between the two languages. (Many old Pali Suttas were translated into Sanskrit and eventually Chinese. Scholars and translators often use these in their own studies of the ancient Pali texts.)
Jason
Your signature says it all.....
Jason, I take on board absolutely everything you say, but there is a problem when the language we translate inTO is not English....
I have several Buddhist books (the Lama Surya Das Trilogy for example) that I also purchased translated into French. And I have noted several glaring inconsistencies between the English Intention of the original phrase, and the inadequacy of the french language, due to phraseological limitations, to convey what the Author intended....
For example, the wonderful phrase "Lighten up!" is quite literally translated as "soit illuminé!" which translated back, means, 'Be Enlightened!' A play on words, in the English original. Hopelessly lost on the French.....
Reminds me of the story of John Steinbeck's widow, who, on a trip to China, found a bookshop which had many American publications, translated into Chinese, but then back into English. her Husband's famous novel, was being sold under the title 'The Angry Raisins'!!:wtf:
As you have the Surya Das books, could you check something for me, please?
In Awakening the Buddha Within, "Step One" has a section entitled (in English) "The Dharma's View of Self", how is that translated into French? In the fourth paragraph, he treats of the translation problem and I am interested in what his translator did with anatman/anatta
Thanks
Well, all I can offer is that it's ok to have doubt, however, be careful not to have too much doubt and miss what's happening due to your reservations.
All too often, the concepts of Buddhism, the very core of the Buddha's teachings in fact, are argued and picked apart and dissected and explained and re-explained...all because the very ideas go against what we believe to be true.
While errors in translating between ancient languages are always a possibility, and the translations will never contain the nuances of the original, that does not mean every translation is incorrect. The Buddha's teachings were translated into at least three well known and used languages. Now one of those languages has died out, however, we still have the other two which are very much alive.
There is no need for a Rosetta stone to the Buddha's teachings because they never completely died out like ancient Egyptian.
I myself encourage people to look closely and carefully at what has been translated, comparing them to other known works, but I do not encourage people to tear apart the Dhamma because it doesn't agree with said person's idea of what's true.
Anatta is one of the most difficult ideas in Buddhism for anyone to understand, I mean to truly have a complete realization of, but it is not by 'translating' better that we can ever hope to understand anatta - it is by meditation and contemplation of our mental and physical processes that we can understand "anatta".
Less dissecting and more practicing is the only way to experience the Dhamma that the Buddha was attempting to point us towards.
Jason
Like what many non-Buddhists do, they mistake non-attachment as detachment. Maybe non-self in essence itself means no-individuality, no soul or something?
The specific English text reads:
"Small wonder that it's so difficult for Westerners to grasp the Buddhist concept of non-self, egolessness or anatta."
The French translation of this passage is as follows:
"Rien d'étonnant à ce que les Occidentaux aient tant de mal à saisir la notion de non-soi, d'absence d'Ego ou anatta."
Inspite of little difference in the length of the sentence, the French language is more 'awkward' and less flexible. English is a rich, vaired and expressive language. Little wonder that it has been universally adopted as a global second language, due to its simple ability to be very exact in what it intends to convey. It is however extremely complex. To go outrageously off-topic for an instant, I recommend a book titled 'Mother Tongue' by Bill Bryson. It's a highly amusing, anecdotal yet superbly researched and accurate history of English as what we know it is spoke today....!
OK, back on topic...!
What a clunky translation! Awful! I would be ashamed to translate so badly. Ah well!
I give it a C minus.
I wasn't saying translations were "incorrect" just that translation is a difficult thing. Just as it is to write down something 300 years after it was actually said.
I just think about how much language has changed in the last 300 years in the US and Europe - and then trying to document something "now" that happened "then". Lots of room for confusion.
But, I believe, that the teachings of Buddha - in their most simplistic form are all we need to reach whatever it is we're trying to reach.
Siddartha didn't have any teachings to rely on and yet he still awoke. I believe that as one travels further along on this path, it is also the experience that is the teacher. Who knows... my awakening might not be exactly like Siddartha's.
I think that by taking the path and it's teachings - all things become clearer and clearer. Some times you can' t just learn by reading - one has to "do".
-bf