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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The "divergent versions" you refer to are really not so divergent as to exclude the discovery of a fundamental Buddhism. The Chinese collections and the Theravadin are remarkably similar and this despite being worlds apart in language of composition.
Do you think there's a difference between "Ashoka warred with Kalinga" (contemporary and/or near-contemporary evidence survives) and "Ashoka built 84,000 stupas" (for the sake of this discussion, let's assume that there is no historical evidence for this). Because that's the distinction being drawn above.
Your point misses the mark, given the discussion centers on history and not religion per se. The biological human life of Siddartha (not to mention Jesus of Nazareth) is a matter of historical evidence, not faith or religious belief.
It turns out that myths are an incredibly powerful vessel to preserve and transmit information. Especially before we had widespread access to printing presses, books, and libraries
> Sacred religious texts have the properties required for an inheritance system. They are replicated across generations with high fidelity and are transcribed into action every generation by the invocation and interpretation of selected passages. In this article we borrow concepts and methods from genetics and epigenetics to study the “expressed phenotypes” of six Christian churches that differ along a conservative–progressive axis. Their phenotypic differences, despite drawing upon the same sacred text, can be explained in part by differential expression of the sacred text. Since the invocation and interpretation of sacred texts are often well preserved, our methods allow the expressed phenotypes of religious groups to be studied at any time and place in history.
Thing is, it is totally appropriate in historical discussions about existing people, even if they are playing an important role in a religion. That's actually what usually happens when you dissect religions: you spot myths, inaccuracies, later inventions, exaggeration, propaganda, and once all that removed, you are left back with a much more historical account that usually looks nothing like the original religion.
I'm always fascinated by the use of the word religion in connection with Buddhism. I can see why, people are always mislabeling things in a way that makes sense in a quick-and-dirty way that reuses existing models of thought, but they're ultimately a drag on any deeper discussion, and this happened long ago with Buddhism. It's not a religion, it's a framework that other religions have taken on. Hence there are Buddhist religions.
It makes about as much sense to call Buddhism a religion as it is to call Ruby on Rails a website (if we're being precise).
Note: I can see how this could look like a rebuttal but it's not, I'm actually joining in with the discussion, riding along with it, not trying to be an arse. I liked the comment I'm replying to! :)
The teachings of Buddha are a framework that religions have taken on in the same sense that the teachings of Jesus are a framework that religions have taken on.
I would define a framework as set of methods and practices to apply to a specific problem domain, those methods based on principles/conclusions arrived at from observation of that domain.
If the teachings of Jesus are a framework that religions have taken on and not a doctrine, then you should specify:
1. what the problem domain is
2. what the conclusions drawn about that domain are
3. what the principles are and how they are arrived at
4. what the methods are
5. how it can be applied to different religions, or non-religions (for example, what use does prayer to God or eternal damnation have to atheists?)
You should also deal with the problem of a supernatural being that you must believe in and follow (may be covered in (5)). I don't know many frameworks like that.
If it's a framework then it will be able to be applied in several contexts. Hence, there are a set of questions that help show it is a framework. It doesn't have to be useful for atheists but it would go a long way to showing it's a framework and not a religion.
I'd be more than happy to go through all of those questions for Buddhism (or Prince2 or Rails or any framework), it would be easy. I can't see how it would be done for Christianity, nor for any formulation of Jesus' teachings, but if you know how, you should!
The problem domain is that of happiness/suffering, and how to obtain/lessen it. Anywhere that is a goal it can be applied. It has been applied to each of the Buddhisms (see edit note), which is why they're called Buddhism. You could apply it to a school or business if you wished, or a family, or yourself.
The problem domain for Ruby on Rails is how to build websites. That's why websites built using Rails are referred to as a Rails site.
The problem domain of Prince2 is how to manage a project. It's why projects which apply it are called Prince2 projects, or Prince2 organisations if they apply it more widely.
What's the problem domain for Jesus' teachings? Where has it been applied?
Edit: Because of the misnomer (people calling things Buddhism that aren't) it makes my initial phrasing seem circular. The Buddhisms are each their own religion which then applied Buddhism, which is why they're now know as Buddhism. So, Bon, the Tibetan shamanic religion is now known as Tibetan Buddhism.
The problem domain for Jesus teachings is ethical action and how to encourage it.
It has been applied to each of the forms of Christianity as well as in many secular societies that eschew the religious components.
You could apply it to a school or business if you wished, or a family or yourself.
The various Christianitys just like the Buddhisms incorporate many of the beliefs and customs that existed before Christ and the Buddha’s teachings respectively were incorporated.
Kudos for the effort. Unfortunately, category error is littered throughout.
> The problem domain for Jesus teachings is ethical action and how to encourage it.
If it did have a problem domain it would be how to get into Heaven and not into Hell. Ethical action would be the way in which that is achieved. It does not, however, have a problem domain because without Christianity there is no problem to be solved. It is not a framework and is not expounded as a framework (this is an incredibly important point).
> It has been applied to each of the forms of Christianity
The different forms of Christianity are called sects because they share a doctrine. A doctrine that is supplied as dogma, I might add. Again, an important point.
Christianity has not been "applied" to the various forms of Christianity because they did not exist prior to being applied to. For example, you could not apply Google to Yahoo because Google is not a framework.
> as well as in many secular societies
Secular societies cannot, by definition, implement Christianity.
> You could apply it to a school or business if you wished, or a family or yourself.
You could not apply Weight Watchers to a school or business or a family or individual. You could apply its principles or methods. Weight Watchers is not a framework, neither is Christianity. Weight Watchers could produce a framework for losing weight but that would not make one thing the other, nor in the same category.
> The various Christianitys
Sect is the correct word.
> just like the Buddhisms
An implementation of Buddhism is not a sect. There are sects within religions that have applied Buddhism. Hence, your comparison is yet another category error and false equivalence.
> incorporate many of the beliefs and customs that existed before Christ and the Buddha’s teachings respectively were incorporated.
Rails incorporates many of the beliefs and customs of web developers and frameworks that existed before it was born, as does Twitter. That does not make Rails a company or a website or a micro-blogging service, and neither does it make Twitter a web framework nor a piece of software.
Distinguishing differences like these can be difficult, especially if you're not acquainted with the basic history of Asian religion, like Bon, or the many schools of Indian thought, Daoism etc (the History of Philosophy podcast[1] is an excellent resource for learning about them), or are not familiar with the many frameworks used by programmers and project managers and the like. Hacker News is a great place to get these kind of insights though so you're in the right place.
Your answer seems confused as anything. The problem domain is ethical action.
Getting into heaven or hell are why the problem domain is salient, but not the problem domain.
I didn’t say Christianity is applied to previous christianities. I said it was applied to the belief systems that existed before - I.e. the various paganisms.
This is well researched historical fact. You are the one making an error here because you are getting confused about the naming.
I’m not talking about sects. I’m talking about Christianity being applied to the belief systems that existed before in the various places where it spread.
You then go on to simply state that Christianity is not a framework.
Affirming the consequent isn’t an argument. We already know that you think this.
The rest of your statements just rely on made up stuff.
There is no such thing as ‘an implementation of Buddhism’. There is no such concept in comparative studies of religion.
You are just using that terminology to make it sound like it can be compared to the programming concept of a framework.
It’s pretty absurd to suggest Buddhism works like Ruby on Rails. Rails doesn’t incorporate beliefs and customs. Nobody believes in rails.
It’s a completely different class of entity, so at best it is a vague analog.
As such Christianity is just as much a framework as Buddhism is.
> It's not a religion, it's a framework that other religions have taken on.
Same can be said about the Torah, the teachings of Jesus and Muhammad. Each has a plethora of religions built on top of them, that we group into big families (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) despite some members of these families having tried to kill each other for centuries.
I think that what makes Buddhism a bit apart is that it is also a framework several people use to build atheistic, humanist philosophies. It is less common (but used to be two centuries ago) to do the same with Christianity. There are also Jews who reject the belief in God and many religious parts of the Talmud but still follow many tenets of judaism for a variety of philosophical reasons.
Living in Asia, seeing the more cultish aspect traditional Buddhism can have, made it harder for me to see it as a kind of special religion, rather than one that is exotic enough to westerners so that they can transform it into a modern philosophy.
I also live in and have lived around Asia, and I won't deny that there are aspects of the Buddhisms there that are full of the kind of nonsense you can see in any other religion (or pretty much anything humans touch) but that doesn't make any part of Buddhism, i.e. the 4 Noble Truths, a religion or having any of those aspects. It's quite clearly a framework (a set of observations, philsophies and methods applied to a particular domain) that is at once abstract enough to be pluggable yet comes with an initial implementation (thanks, Buddha).
To labour the point I made earlier (somewhat), I can build you a terrible database using 4th normal form, that is called upon by a web framework using any number of patterns like the Active Record or Data Mapper patterns, pushed into an MVC pattern that is full of tacked on bits that make no sense (if you know what you're doing) and spewed out into an utter mess of a web page, but that wouldn't make 4th normal form bad, or MVC etc or the framework encompasing them a bad thing.
Zen Buddhism (Daoism + vestiges of Indian Buddhism) is not Theravada Buddism (Indian Buddhism) is not Tibetan Buddhism (Bon shamanism + Indian Buddhism). It's always spliced into something. Non-Asian Buddhism does the same thing but often bringing in the extraneous parts tacked on.
Where, for example, is there any doctrine in the 4 Noble Truths? Any part that says you need a guru? Any part that says to follow a book or a god (or gods) or the need to chant…? It simply doesn't have any of those things.
Huh, what are the 4 noble truths if not a doctrine that instructs people to go towards the 8 paths?
And if you chose to dismiss the religious and cultish parts, you can also find a lot of value in Jesus teaching about unconditional love and about inner spiritual discipline.
I have no qualms in people using a cleaned up religion as a source for spiritual growth, and will agree that Buddhism has many features that makes it particularly friendly, like its focus on non-violence, but don't be mistaken in what you are doing in the process. It is still a typical religion that has little inherent reason to be more sensible than any other source. All its advices have to stand on their own merit.
> what are the 4 noble truths if not a doctrine that instructs people to go towards the 8 paths?
A doctrine is a belief of set of beliefs, not a set of premises or propositions for investigation nor a set of practices. For example, a hypothesis is not a doctrine, nor is the scientific method. Prince2, PMP, Scrum, Lean, Six Sigma et al are also not doctrines.
The 8-fold path is an alternative breakdown of one of the truths (the last one, presented - as all are - as "truth" because under examination/usage they should be shown to be correct), not separate.
Nowhere within the 4 or the 8 is there any requirement for belief or adherence to any authority in the form of a being or creed.
I think Buddhism is special for atheistic, humanist philosophies in that the foundational writings didn't go on about God. Of course people may have tacked stuff on subsequently.
The Torah, the teachings of Jesus and Muhammad on the other hand all recognise Genesis and "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..."
Many Buddhist texts are full of supernatural claims about afterlife, the worlds of demons and devas, about prayers opening the earth to see flowers giving you the text of Buddha, that sort of things.
Thinking Buddhism focuses on the philosophical parts is like cherry-picking Proverbs from the bible.
Buddhism also has its own nonsensical cosmology [1]. We just don't care too much about it in the West.
I meant the accounts of what Buddha himself taught seem to steer clear of God. eg in the article:
>when asked abstract metaphysical questions, such as whether the world is eternal, whether the soul is different from the body, or what happens to a liberated person (tathāgata) after death and so on, Gotama stays silent, or points out that he has set these subjects aside
he seems to stick to the observable basics. Though as mentioned, of course people may have tacked stuff on subsequently.
The torah as commonly translated does, but there is an interesting work from a physicist that brings a very atheistic/geometric translation of the torah to light that has been blowing my mind.
I took the usage of myth here to make a distinction when talking about what we know of the "historical" Buddah but maybe I'm wrong and his contradiction was informed by religious scripture
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...