He may not have been a literal historical prince, but to make the distinction may be to miss the point a bit.
For example if you compare the Mesopotamian creation myth, the Enuma Elish to the book of genesis you will find many correspondences at the formal level.
What I mean by that is that the overall structure of the Enuma Elish is preserved in Genesis, but with some changes. In the Mesopotamian myth, there were seven generations of gods, but in Genesis this was transmuted into seven days for one god.
You could say that Genesis is a parody of the Enuma Elish. I don't believe for an instant that the people who wrote genesis believed in the seven days and what was created on each day, it's probably allegorical.
The most important point being made in genesis is to be found not in the sequence of events, but in the differences against the backdrop of the Mesopotamian myth, the main one being that there is only one god.
Likewise, the embellished life story of the Buddha, the bit with the white elephant, and the birth in a palace, and the journey on the cart through the town with the charioteer 'Channa' all borrow elements from well known Indian motifs. The most important parts of the story are probably to be found in the 'diffs' and are not to be taken literally.
They probably weren't even taken literally at the time.
In summary, I think we are reading too much into ancient texts that were probably written in the allegorical mode.
The religious events in India at the time of Buddha were much more complex and nuanced than most of those who concentrate on Buddha alone are aware, for example, there was also Charvaka school, apparently even less willing to accept any direct influence of gods on humans:
"Charvaka holds direct perception, empiricism, and conditional inference as proper sources of knowledge, embraces philosophical skepticism and rejects ritualism, and supernaturalism."
"Mahavira and Gautama Buddha are generally accepted as contemporaries (circa 5th century BCE)."
"Beyond the times of the Mahāvīra and the Buddha, the two ascetic sramana (seeker) religions competed for followers as well as the merchant trade networks that sustained them.[128][414] Their mutual interaction, along with those of Hindu traditions, have been significant."
"Jainism and Buddhism share many features, terminology and ethical principles, but emphasize them differently.[2] Both are śramaṇa ascetic traditions that believe it is possible to attain liberation from the cycle of rebirths and deaths (samsara) through spiritual and ethical disciplines.[3] They differ in some core doctrines such as those on asceticism, Middle Way versus Anekantavada, and self versus no-self (jiva, atta, anatta)."
For a similar demythologising take on the Buddha read 'A Bull of a Man' by John Powers, professor of Asian Studies and Buddhism in Australia.
"The androgynous, asexual Buddha of contemporary popular imagination stands in stark contrast to the muscular, virile, and sensual figure presented in Indian Buddhist texts. In early Buddhist literature and art, the Buddha's perfect physique and sexual prowess are important components of his legend as the world s ultimate man. He is both the scholarly, religiously inclined brahman and the warrior ruler who excels in martial arts, athletic pursuits, and sexual exploits. The Buddha effortlessly performs these dual roles, combining his society's norms for ideal manhood and creating a powerful image taken up by later followers in promoting their tradition in a hotly contested religious marketplace.
In this groundbreaking study of previously unexplored aspects of the early Buddhist tradition, John Powers skillfully adapts methodological approaches from European and North American historiography to the study of early Buddhist literature, art, and iconography, highlighting aspects of the tradition that have been surprisingly invisible in earlier scholarship. The book focuses on the figure of the Buddha and his monastic followers to show how they were constructed as paragons of masculinity, whose powerful bodies and compelling sexuality attracted women, elicited admiration from men, and convinced skeptics of their spiritual attainments."
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.
From the context it seems clear that "imperial" refers to the Nanda/Maurya empire - seeing as Kapilavastu and more generally, the Terai are at the periphery of the Gangetic plain. Is it accurate to call Pataliputra based regimes imperial when they ruled over Takshashila? I would think so - what else would you call Ashoka's conquest of Kalinga?
Why are you assuming that they are referring to the British Empire? They could be referring to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire, which covered most of India not long after Buddha is said to have lived.
This reminds of what Gregory Schopen, professor of Buddhist Studies at UCLA and an eminent scholar of early Buddhist history once told me - that the alleged Kapilvastu area during 5th-6th century BC was most possibly a malarial swamp. And it would be hard to imagine it even being a habitable area in the first place.
I'm technically a Buddhist as with 90% of other Japanese people, but don't know anything about Buddhism. ("Technically" means that you're going to have a Buddhist-style burial which requires a registration by a Buddhist temple in Japan.) So let me just share a fun fact: it is widely believed that there are many Buddha relics (bones) that were originally brought from China/India and people built temples that store them, many of which still exist today throughout Japan. Actually, Kinkaku-ji (Golden Temple), one of the most famous tourist sites in Kyoto, was built for that purpose. It is believed that people stored His bone at the basis of every temple, but no one has ever confirmed it. Religion is weird.
I am also technically a Buddhist (in the same sense as yours) and have little idea about what/how it is other than some observed monthly/yearly rituals.
"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.
> the modern mindfulness movement, inherited from fairly recent Burmese innovations
I had not heard that. I had understood it to have something to do with interest in Zen, which had a revival in the West starting in the mid 1900's. But I admit I don't really know anything about it. Does someone have a reference?
Zen and Vipassana are the two major Buddhist practices which had revivals in the 20th century and gained popularity in the west.
Vipassana was originally popularized amongst westerners by S. N. Goenka[1] who was a Hindi expat in Burma, where he learned the practice. Many of his western students went on to be prominent teachers[2].
I don't have the answer to your question, but I don't see the connection between mindfulness and Zen to be as direct as you're suggesting. I've been highly influenced by a lot of the mindfulness writing out there, but Zen actively turned me off for a long time, because it's a lot of "deep" paradoxical puzzle/koan things, anecdotes that make no sense, emphasis on "enlightment" etc. Contrast that with a lot of modern day mindfulness stuff which is highly, highly influenced by Buddhism but basically extracts the most practical stuff, meditation practice, awareness of thoughts/feelings, recognition of egotistical cravings, acceptance of impermanence, etc.
I think he would have seen much contemporary Buddhist observance as entirely disconnected from his teachings. That doesn't necessarily mean he would have scorned it. There is one sutta in which a follower of a rival teacher was convinced by his teachings and wanted to follow him, and the Buddha advised him to continue respecting his former master. There are also important suttas in which he stressed that his own teachings are not "true" in an absolute sense, and religious teachings should be valued according to the extent to which they are helpful. I don't know the historical status of those suttas, but historically it doesn't seem common for first-gen carriers of the faith to retroactively exaggerate the uncertainty and doctrinal pragmatism of the founder of their religion. Many modern Buddhist teachers (notably the Dalai Lama) express great respect for the ability of other religions, including Islam and Christianity, to inspire and nurture spiritual progress in their followers. So he might look at modern Buddhists reciting nembutsu or leaving offerings at Buddha statues and say, I can't see any connection between these practices and what I tried to teach, but they seem to be helping people a little bit.
His attitude might also depend on how seriously he took rebirth, which was widely believed in his time and place and takes a central place in some of his teachings. It's a point of great controversy among contemporary Buddhists: was rebirth a part of the teachings because it was coincidentally an accepted view in the time and place where Gautama taught? Is it an inseparable part of Buddhism? Both, neither? Can you reject rebirth and still preserve the essence of Buddhism? If Gautama showed up in the present day and said, "Oh, practically nobody believes in rebirth anymore? No matter, I can teach everything I know to people who don't believe it," that would rock the world of Buddhism. But vice-versa probably wouldn't make much of a difference, and neither is going to happen anyway so we'll have to live with the controversy regardless.
Statues and idols as a form of respect and reminder, no. As a form of seeking good fortune or merit he most definitely disapproved:
"Whereas some religious men, while living of food provided by the faithful make their living by such low arts, such wrong means of livelihood as palmistry, divining by signs, interpreting dreams... bringing good or bad luck... invoking the goodness of luck... picking the lucky site for a building, the monk Gotama refrains from such low arts, such wrong means of livelihood."
> Other aspects of the myth must be stripped away. The Buddha’s father Suddhodana was probably not a king. In an early story, the Buddha remembers attaining a meditative state as a child, while sitting under a tree as his father worked nearby. Are we to imagine that the King of the Sakyas had to work his own fields?
Interesting. I grew up in a Theravada Buddhist family in SE Asia. What I read from the texts available to me was that the father of Buddha was at a ceremony that celebrates the start of the season of growing rice, so as a king, he joined in.
This discussion has been going on for thousands of years. Considering the difficulties, and the shortness of life, one has to wonder how many of the discussers actually had the time to find liberation.
> 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 you leave the door open for a potentially powerful feminine character.
If you read the linked article, I think you'll find that the answer that the Buddha would have suggested for your question is silence ;-)
However, I am not well learned in the ways of Buddhism, so I shall attempt to answer your question with words. What do you mean by your question?
Do you mean: Was there a person exactly as these stories describe that did exactly what the stories describe and said exactly what the stories describe? There is no doubt at all to this answer: no, there was not. Despite my lack of education in Buddhism, I feel pretty confident that the subset of Buddhist practitioners who believe in such a thing approaches zero (I'm sure there are some, but not significant). Buddhism is a religion without dogma after all. Why else would a respected scholar on Buddhism write an article pretty much saying that the stories about Buddha are likely to be incorrect in part or in whole?
Or is your question: Was there a person who was the originator of the Buddhist religion? I think it is highly likely that the answer is "yes". I mean, it's possible that there was a group who started the religion, but it seems improbable to me. Look at any modern religion/cult. How many are started by a single person (all of them that I know about) and how many are started by a group of people (I assume that there are some, but I don't know of them)?
Or is your question: Are any of the stories about the person who started the Buddhist religion true? Again, I think this is a pretty easy answer: almost certainly yes. I mean, what the heck are they saying about him? He was born. He struggled until he found enlightenment. Then he started a religion. I mean the religion exists today. That's pretty good evidence that the original leader did some stuff.
Or are you asking: Is it true that the Buddha really was enlightened in the way he claimed? I can answer that one easily too: I don't know. ;-) And the really cool thing that I like about Buddhism is that I don't think it really matters all that much. You can learn about Buddhism, use the bits that are helpful to you and chuck away all the rest. Other Buddhists will pretty much think you are doing a good job -- or at least that's been my experience.
HN posting rules advise me to view your question charitably and to assume good faith. In that spirit, I hope that even if you never intended to ask any of the above questions, you can pick one or more of them and get answers that will help you. If the question was rhetorical and simply meant to belittle others who think differently than you do, then I apologise for wasting your time.
Your question presupposes that there is significant doubt about the existence of Jesus. I am fairly confident that the historical person existed. I am also fairly confident that many of the stories about him are invented or at least, greatly exaggerated. The same applies to Buddha; however, a sibling comment answered much better than I.
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.
This is a hell of a book, I read it last month and found it pretty powerful.
The main message that I got from it was that every road or path that people take in life is valid, everyone is different and have their own preferences and tastes and consecutively, not because you find the other paths "worse" or less worthy than yours it indeed means that they are, neither that those people are inferior to you.
Book should be read by way more people, specially by high arrogant ones who put down on others.
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.
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) which did not refer specifically to a palace or royal residence (vimana or mandira). nivasana was not used to refer to royal palaces until centuries after it was presumably written in the Tripitaka. Buddha also does not refer to his father as a king, but when asked he just said his dad was from Sakya clan (Sn 322,323,324).
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 the same in Sanskrit), or you have some dubious sources.
Interesting. Reminds me of a similar example with Jesus, commonly thought to be a carpenter, but who was really a tektōn (At least according to the Gospel of Mark) which could be translated as carpenter or stonemason. Most houses in Israel at the time would appear to have been made of stone, and therefore stonemason seems like it’d be a more appropriate translation.
The article is correct in that Buddha being a prince is a myth.
The use of the word myth in connection with religion always fascinates me. The entire concept of religion generally depends on myths. recursive use of myth in myth.
Generally I have to read these sentences as in my opinion because the 'factual' quality of statements regarding the ur-myths of religion is usually not quantifiable, its all contextually defined by interpretation, semantics, ontology, eschatology, history, culture...
> In orthodox Buddhism, like that in Sri Lanka, the path to understanding Buddhism is uncontroversial, difficult but uncontroversial.
After reading the memoirs of Bhante Henepola Gunaratana (the author of Mindfulness in Plain English) I get the impression that Sri Lankan Buddhism was degraded into pointless rote learning and empty rituals. When Bhante G. became a monk in 1940's monks didn't even practice meditation.
When religion becomes so ingrained into culture like it has in Asia, it seems that it becomes just empty conservative power structure, not different form Catholic Church in the west.
Sri Lanka and Burma have supremacist monks who advocate hate. Western Buddhists go to Burma and Asia to train with those few meditation teachers who know their stuff and learn from them while most Asians just see Buddhism as cultural tradition.
The person who wrote this article is a well-established Buddhist scholar who has actually spent years studying in schools, as you say one must, to study the history of Buddhism. Why wouldn't you say they were in a credible position to tell the world what is mythical about Buddhism?
Becoming an orthodox Buddhist even feels like it would be counterproductive if one's purpose is to investigate what is mythical about Buddhism.
In any case, what is being discussed here is the historical person known as the Buddha, not the experience of being raised as an orthodox Buddhist.
"In orthodox Buddhism, like that in Sri Lanka, the path to understanding Buddhism is uncontroversial, difficult but uncontroversial."
Nice.
"First of all drop your arrogance."
Not nice.
"Of course when you attach a loaded word like "myth" to anything that you can't experience from when and where you are now, none of that matters anymore."
It was time to start listening instead of speaking before this paragraph was typed.
I think you've misunderstood the nature of article.
The article is about the historical Buddha i.e. the person whom people believe existed, as a human.
It's not about 'understanding Buddhism'.
There is nothing 'Western' about objective historical investigation, and neither is the term 'myth' highly overloaded; if people believe strongly in a narrative that is not based in reality, we call that 'myth' and it's a fair term.
[+] [-] gerbilly|6 years ago|reply
For example if you compare the Mesopotamian creation myth, the Enuma Elish to the book of genesis you will find many correspondences at the formal level.
What I mean by that is that the overall structure of the Enuma Elish is preserved in Genesis, but with some changes. In the Mesopotamian myth, there were seven generations of gods, but in Genesis this was transmuted into seven days for one god.
You could say that Genesis is a parody of the Enuma Elish. I don't believe for an instant that the people who wrote genesis believed in the seven days and what was created on each day, it's probably allegorical.
The most important point being made in genesis is to be found not in the sequence of events, but in the differences against the backdrop of the Mesopotamian myth, the main one being that there is only one god.
Likewise, the embellished life story of the Buddha, the bit with the white elephant, and the birth in a palace, and the journey on the cart through the town with the charioteer 'Channa' all borrow elements from well known Indian motifs. The most important parts of the story are probably to be found in the 'diffs' and are not to be taken literally.
They probably weren't even taken literally at the time.
In summary, I think we are reading too much into ancient texts that were probably written in the allegorical mode.
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] soufron|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acqq|6 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charvaka
"Charvaka holds direct perception, empiricism, and conditional inference as proper sources of knowledge, embraces philosophical skepticism and rejects ritualism, and supernaturalism."
Also Jainism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism
even today with "four to five million followers worldwide."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahavira
"Mahavira and Gautama Buddha are generally accepted as contemporaries (circa 5th century BCE)."
"Beyond the times of the Mahāvīra and the Buddha, the two ascetic sramana (seeker) religions competed for followers as well as the merchant trade networks that sustained them.[128][414] Their mutual interaction, along with those of Hindu traditions, have been significant."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Jainism
"Jainism and Buddhism share many features, terminology and ethical principles, but emphasize them differently.[2] Both are śramaṇa ascetic traditions that believe it is possible to attain liberation from the cycle of rebirths and deaths (samsara) through spiritual and ethical disciplines.[3] They differ in some core doctrines such as those on asceticism, Middle Way versus Anekantavada, and self versus no-self (jiva, atta, anatta)."
[+] [-] fsiefken|6 years ago|reply
"The androgynous, asexual Buddha of contemporary popular imagination stands in stark contrast to the muscular, virile, and sensual figure presented in Indian Buddhist texts. In early Buddhist literature and art, the Buddha's perfect physique and sexual prowess are important components of his legend as the world s ultimate man. He is both the scholarly, religiously inclined brahman and the warrior ruler who excels in martial arts, athletic pursuits, and sexual exploits. The Buddha effortlessly performs these dual roles, combining his society's norms for ideal manhood and creating a powerful image taken up by later followers in promoting their tradition in a hotly contested religious marketplace.
In this groundbreaking study of previously unexplored aspects of the early Buddhist tradition, John Powers skillfully adapts methodological approaches from European and North American historiography to the study of early Buddhist literature, art, and iconography, highlighting aspects of the tradition that have been surprisingly invisible in earlier scholarship. The book focuses on the figure of the Buddha and his monastic followers to show how they were constructed as paragons of masculinity, whose powerful bodies and compelling sexuality attracted women, elicited admiration from men, and convinced skeptics of their spiritual attainments."
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003MKB5ZE/ref=dbs_a_def_r...
[+] [-] brainless|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] brainless|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] rajekas|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jdale27|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jariel|6 years ago|reply
This is definitely not a reference to the British Raj, it's a reference to Indian 'Imperial India'.
[+] [-] vatkhrt|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] euske|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] soufron|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rntksi|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kingkawn|6 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] tim333|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jimhefferon|6 years ago|reply
I had not heard that. I had understood it to have something to do with interest in Zen, which had a revival in the West starting in the mid 1900's. But I admit I don't really know anything about it. Does someone have a reference?
[+] [-] wefarrell|6 years ago|reply
Vipassana was originally popularized amongst westerners by S. N. Goenka[1] who was a Hindi expat in Burma, where he learned the practice. Many of his western students went on to be prominent teachers[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._N._Goenka [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Students_of_S._N._Goe...
[+] [-] ditonal|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chewz|6 years ago|reply
First group meditation for laypeople took place in 1911.
So this is fairly new idea.
[] https://tricycle.org/magazine/meditation-en-masse/
[+] [-] haecceity|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dkarl|6 years ago|reply
His attitude might also depend on how seriously he took rebirth, which was widely believed in his time and place and takes a central place in some of his teachings. It's a point of great controversy among contemporary Buddhists: was rebirth a part of the teachings because it was coincidentally an accepted view in the time and place where Gautama taught? Is it an inseparable part of Buddhism? Both, neither? Can you reject rebirth and still preserve the essence of Buddhism? If Gautama showed up in the present day and said, "Oh, practically nobody believes in rebirth anymore? No matter, I can teach everything I know to people who don't believe it," that would rock the world of Buddhism. But vice-versa probably wouldn't make much of a difference, and neither is going to happen anyway so we'll have to live with the controversy regardless.
[+] [-] alexmingoia|6 years ago|reply
"Whereas some religious men, while living of food provided by the faithful make their living by such low arts, such wrong means of livelihood as palmistry, divining by signs, interpreting dreams... bringing good or bad luck... invoking the goodness of luck... picking the lucky site for a building, the monk Gotama refrains from such low arts, such wrong means of livelihood."
D.I, 9-12
[+] [-] Disruptive_Dave|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] programmertote|6 years ago|reply
Interesting. I grew up in a Theravada Buddhist family in SE Asia. What I read from the texts available to me was that the father of Buddha was at a ceremony that celebrates the start of the season of growing rice, so as a king, he joined in.
[+] [-] 8bitsrule|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wahern|6 years ago|reply
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 you leave the door open for a potentially powerful feminine character.
[+] [-] IshV|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] soufron|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikekchar|6 years ago|reply
However, I am not well learned in the ways of Buddhism, so I shall attempt to answer your question with words. What do you mean by your question?
Do you mean: Was there a person exactly as these stories describe that did exactly what the stories describe and said exactly what the stories describe? There is no doubt at all to this answer: no, there was not. Despite my lack of education in Buddhism, I feel pretty confident that the subset of Buddhist practitioners who believe in such a thing approaches zero (I'm sure there are some, but not significant). Buddhism is a religion without dogma after all. Why else would a respected scholar on Buddhism write an article pretty much saying that the stories about Buddha are likely to be incorrect in part or in whole?
Or is your question: Was there a person who was the originator of the Buddhist religion? I think it is highly likely that the answer is "yes". I mean, it's possible that there was a group who started the religion, but it seems improbable to me. Look at any modern religion/cult. How many are started by a single person (all of them that I know about) and how many are started by a group of people (I assume that there are some, but I don't know of them)?
Or is your question: Are any of the stories about the person who started the Buddhist religion true? Again, I think this is a pretty easy answer: almost certainly yes. I mean, what the heck are they saying about him? He was born. He struggled until he found enlightenment. Then he started a religion. I mean the religion exists today. That's pretty good evidence that the original leader did some stuff.
Or are you asking: Is it true that the Buddha really was enlightened in the way he claimed? I can answer that one easily too: I don't know. ;-) And the really cool thing that I like about Buddhism is that I don't think it really matters all that much. You can learn about Buddhism, use the bits that are helpful to you and chuck away all the rest. Other Buddhists will pretty much think you are doing a good job -- or at least that's been my experience.
HN posting rules advise me to view your question charitably and to assume good faith. In that spirit, I hope that even if you never intended to ask any of the above questions, you can pick one or more of them and get answers that will help you. If the question was rhetorical and simply meant to belittle others who think differently than you do, then I apologise for wasting your time.
[+] [-] goodcanadian|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] humbfool2|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nestorherre|6 years ago|reply
The main message that I got from it was that every road or path that people take in life is valid, everyone is different and have their own preferences and tastes and consecutively, not because you find the other paths "worse" or less worthy than yours it indeed means that they are, neither that those people are inferior to you.
Book should be read by way more people, specially by high arrogant ones who put down on others.
[+] [-] mindentropy|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexmingoia|6 years ago|reply
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) which did not refer specifically to a palace or royal residence (vimana or mandira). nivasana was not used to refer to royal palaces until centuries after it was presumably written in the Tripitaka. Buddha also does not refer to his father as a king, but when asked he just said his dad was from Sakya clan (Sn 322,323,324).
[+] [-] factorialboy|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] sombremesa|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GuiA|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] collyw|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ggm|6 years ago|reply
The use of the word myth in connection with religion always fascinates me. The entire concept of religion generally depends on myths. recursive use of myth in myth.
Generally I have to read these sentences as in my opinion because the 'factual' quality of statements regarding the ur-myths of religion is usually not quantifiable, its all contextually defined by interpretation, semantics, ontology, eschatology, history, culture...
[+] [-] programmertote|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] thehoomanist|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] thetanil|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] smadurange|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] nabla9|6 years ago|reply
After reading the memoirs of Bhante Henepola Gunaratana (the author of Mindfulness in Plain English) I get the impression that Sri Lankan Buddhism was degraded into pointless rote learning and empty rituals. When Bhante G. became a monk in 1940's monks didn't even practice meditation.
When religion becomes so ingrained into culture like it has in Asia, it seems that it becomes just empty conservative power structure, not different form Catholic Church in the west.
Sri Lanka and Burma have supremacist monks who advocate hate. Western Buddhists go to Burma and Asia to train with those few meditation teachers who know their stuff and learn from them while most Asians just see Buddhism as cultural tradition.
[+] [-] kranner|6 years ago|reply
Becoming an orthodox Buddhist even feels like it would be counterproductive if one's purpose is to investigate what is mythical about Buddhism.
In any case, what is being discussed here is the historical person known as the Buddha, not the experience of being raised as an orthodox Buddhist.
[+] [-] gerdesj|6 years ago|reply
Nice.
"First of all drop your arrogance."
Not nice.
"Of course when you attach a loaded word like "myth" to anything that you can't experience from when and where you are now, none of that matters anymore."
It was time to start listening instead of speaking before this paragraph was typed.
[+] [-] jariel|6 years ago|reply
The article is about the historical Buddha i.e. the person whom people believe existed, as a human.
It's not about 'understanding Buddhism'.
There is nothing 'Western' about objective historical investigation, and neither is the term 'myth' highly overloaded; if people believe strongly in a narrative that is not based in reality, we call that 'myth' and it's a fair term.