
Who Was the Buddha? - furtively
https://aeon.co/essays/was-the-buddha-an-awakened-prince-or-a-humble-itinerant
======
gerbilly
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.

~~~
soufron
Exactly. And the existence of Buddha himself might well be very allegorical.

------
acqq
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:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charvaka](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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism)

even today with "four to five million followers worldwide."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahavira](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](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
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."

[https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003MKB5ZE/ref=dbs_a_def_r...](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003MKB5ZE/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i1)

------
brainless
A side nitpick:

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.

~~~
jdale27
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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire),
which covered most of India not long after Buddha is said to have lived.

~~~
brainless
Oh the Maurya dynasty is exactly one part of the rich history I mentioned,
that is non Imperial.

Edit: Imperialism means to extend over "foreign nations". Mauryan empire is
not foreign, it is as Indian as it can get.

~~~
ithinkso
Imperialism does but not the adjective 'imperial' which simply implies
relation to an empire. Imperial Japan has nothing to do with the British and
yet it is 'imperial'.

~~~
brainless
Yes you are right about the phrase "Imperial Japan" not having any relation to
the British. But "Imperial India" does.

Any reader searching this phrase online or looking up any common reference
will find the British relation. Unfortunate, but that is how it is. As an
Indian, I have always known that. That is why the phrase jumped at me.

Is it too much to expect an author writing such a detailed article from this
region to know that?

~~~
ithinkso
I understand what you are saying but you've asserted as truth that the author
said what you said and in a pretty accusatory tone. If you use 'Imperial
India' as standalone phrase it does refer to the British rule because it is
the most recent and that's what most assume you mean. But when talking about
Buddha it is quite a leap to think the author would use such a pointless
timeframe so the context alone is enough.

Even a paragraph later the emperor Asoka is mentioned explicitly

------
vatkhrt
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.

------
euske
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.

~~~
soufron
Aren't japanese people shintoists rather than buddhists?

~~~
m0llusk
Buddhism was extremely popular and influential in Japan until roughly the time
of the Samurai, though many factors are involved with this change. It is
interesting that in Buddhist dominated Japan use of cannabis was common, even
ubiquitous. This changed completely with the rise of the Samurai, leading to
the strongly anti cannabis and alcohol tolerant society in Japan now.

~~~
krapp
I was under the impression that Japan's anti-cannabis culture came about as a
result of American occupation and postwar industrialization (the latter,
primarily, to favor synthetic rope and fabric manufacturing over Japan's
native hemp industries.)

------
kingkawn
"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?

~~~
tim333
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.

~~~
Shihan
I heard this story a few weeks ago and it made me realize a thing that I
dislike in Zen Buddhism, at least the perception of Zen Buddhism I have. Isn't
this way (and surely other ways) of Buddhism not also some "tainted" way of
life. For me it looks very Nihilistic. Shouldn't Buddha be a good role-model -
so how can he have left wife and kid? In Buddhism or at least Zen Buddhism I
believe there is great emphasis on the concept of non-attachment, you should
not cling on to things. You must let go of everything to find your Buddha
nature. So it makes sense, that Buddha has left his family to sit under the
tree. But for me this is such a denial of the human nature and thus it feels
unnatural, unwise and just like other religions and sects with their doctrines
and dogma. I'm a big "fan" of Robert Sapolsky and his courses of Human
Biological Behavioral Evolution. Buddhism, especially Zen, gets often seen as
a God-less, very logical, very humanistic religion. But there are elements,
like in any cult. Dogma which would lead to the human race going extinct if
everybody would follow it. I don't believe in Gods but I must admit but I am
rather attracted to the (crazy :-) ) Mythology of Asatru, because it feels
much more natural and in symbiosis with the human nature to me.

~~~
gerbilly
> So it makes sense, that Buddha has left his family to sit under the tree.
> But for me this is such a denial of the human nature and thus it feels
> unnatural, unwise and just like other religions and sects with their
> doctrines and dogma.

The separation was a during his spiritual search. After he attained what he
was looking for he reunited with his son.

Sometimes we have to go away to figure things out. After he reached his goal,
the Buddha spent the next fifty years surrounded by people whom he taught and
counseled.

Let me flip it for you. What about Alexander the great, or other historical
figures? Shouldn't he have stayed home with his family instead of starting a
senseless war and then dying in India?

How come this double standard is always trotted out against the Buddha, when
all these other conquering, massacring guys get away with it?

~~~
tim333
Well the Buddha is usually brought up as a nice guy rather than the
conquering, massacring type. Hence the different standards.

------
jimhefferon
> 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?

~~~
wefarrell
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].

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._N._Goenka](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._N._Goenka)
[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Students_of_S._N._Goe...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Students_of_S._N._Goenka)

~~~
kranner
> S. N. Goenka[1] who was a Hindi expat in Burma

He was born in Mandalay, Burma and grew up there. I wouldn't call him an
Indian expat in Burma, more like Burmese-Indian.

~~~
wefarrell
Good point.

------
haecceity
I wonder if he would have scorned all this idolatry and worship. I think he
would have.

~~~
dkarl
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.

~~~
plinkplonk
" It's a point of great controversy among contemporary Buddhists:"

among contemporary _western_ Buddhists, maybe, who have a hard time wrapping
their heads around the concept, (which is understandable, since Christianity -
at least the mainstream versions - which was the dominant European religion
for centuries has no corresponding concept).

In Buddhism as practised in Asia (Thailand, Burma,Srilanka, India, Nepal,
China, Japan etc) it is not controversial at all, and is quite mainstream,
with next to no "controversy" around it.

------
programmertote
> 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.

------
8bitsrule
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.

------
wahern
> 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.

~~~
IshV
The Buddha's step-mother actually played a central role in the establishment
of Buddhism. She drove the establishment of the order of nuns.

------
soufron
Is it certain that he ever existed? Or is it like Jesus?

~~~
mikekchar
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.

~~~
soufron
I love your answer, but I am afraid most buddhists believe that there was a
historical buddha.

------
humbfool2
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.

~~~
mindentropy
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.

~~~
smadurange
I studied that book for my literature course in high school. That book is a
joke. It tried to imitate the story of the buddha but twisted it to fit a
western narrative. Author did himself a great disservice writing it. Would
have been better off if he tried to just create something original instead.

------
alexmingoia
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).

~~~
ggm
_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...

~~~
alexmingoia
When I say myth, I mean in the sense that it’s not actually supported by the
Tripitaka, which is the first complete written account of Buddha’s teachings
by a lineage of his original monastic order (mostly confirmed by historical
evidence where it exists) to survive as written to the present day, and
considered canonical Buddhist teaching.

It is most definitely quantifiable whether something is or is not written in
the Tripitaka. That is why it remains important and historically significant.

~~~
jaldhar
One also has to bear in mind that the Tripitakha was compiled several
centuries after the Buddha is said to have lived and has several divergent
versions according to the ideological predilections of its editors. Also Pali
was probably not the native language of the Buddha. The vernacular of the area
where he lived and taught was call Magadhi. (The Jain Agamas are transmitted
in a related language called Ardhamagadhi “half Magadhi”) Pali was prevalent
in Avanti in West India (the geographical base of Sthaviravadins) not Magadha.
The Sarvastivadins used Sanskrit, and Mahasanghikas used yet another language
for their version. All of them claimed to have “The Original Teachings of the
Buddha.”

So I think attempts to find “fundamental” Buddhism are ultimately futile.

~~~
ma2rten
I believe that some scholars actually believe that Pali is an artificial
language, a mixture between different dialects that was intelligible to people
from different regions.

There is no question that there are some later additions. There are even some
contradictions. But by comparing different passages and comparing with the
Chinese Agamas, we can get a pretty good idea of what the Buddha actually
thought.

~~~
jaldhar
Yes I have read that Pali could have been a trade language.

Interestingly this method of textual comparison has also proven useful in
tracing the history of the “Hindu” Samkhya school; one of whose early works,
lost in Sanskrit, is preserved in the Chinese (Mahayana) Buddhist canon.

~~~
nsomaru
I’m interested in the Sankhyans! Any reference?

~~~
jaldhar
Sorry for the late reply but as an introduction I suggest “Encyclopedia of
Indian Philosopies Volume IV: Samkhya A Dualistic Tradition in Indian
Philosophy” Gerald James Larson & Ramshankar Bhattacharya (editors), Delhi,
Motilal Banarsidass, 1987.

------
fouc
His name was Gautama Adicca.

------
vagy
You can ask Klaus Kenneth who Buddha was :-)

------
lota-putty
It doesn't really matters where he came from. We spend too much time thinking
about who/where/when instead why/how. Perhaps a flare of royalty adds weight
to the narrative.

For the first time in his life he contrived a new perspective on `what is
life` on his own & went on his own way. He was stubborn, righteous & what not.

This thread is as irrelevant as my post. Humans always have/will blow things
out of proportions when they praise/critic someone they like/dislike.

------
larnmar
I’m confused why the article doesn’t consider the initial question of whether
the historical Buddha existed at all. Given the amount of ink that has been
spilled over the existence or otherwise of the historical Jesus, and the even
spottier historical sources about Buddha (we can’t even nail him down to a
specific century), isn’t this question worthy of consideration?

~~~
jbotz
I'm really far from an expert on this, but I've read quite a lot on the
subject and my understanding is that there is considerably more historical
evidence for Gautama-the-Buddha being a single real person than for Jesus
Christ, that "we can't even nail him down to a specific century"
notwithstanding. In the case of Jesus the timing isn't much of a question
because of the well-accounted for political events of the time, whereas
perhaps India at the time lacked sufficiently standard date-keeping system for
us to synchronize the writings now.

But as I understand it the Buddha is mentioned in a lot of completely
independent contemporaneous texts whereas Jesus is basically only mentioned
only in the Bible. In itself that doesn't prove anything... the Buddha was
active as a spiritual leader for many decades, and Jesus only for 3 years, and
maybe the wider society around Jesus was just much more interested in
political events whereas Indian society as a whole at the time of Buddha was
exploring more spiritual and philosophical dimensions. But I've always had the
impression that there are proportionally more history scholars who question
the existence of Jesus as a single real person than that of the Buddha.

~~~
larnmar
Yeah, that’s the kind of thing that should have been in the article.

