What is the Buddha anyway?

[ahoneycutt]

Hi,

I'm interested in the historical Buddha, which most people think about when they refer to the Buddha. The figure that is credited with giving the four noble truths and certain supernatural phenomena. In Buddhism they talk about taking refuge in the three jewels: the Buddha, the dharma, and the sanga. So is the Buddha seen as a diety, a Christ-like figure, as a sort of higher power?

As I'm familiar with Buddhism nothing is permanent. Everything goes through cycles, everything changes, everything dies. So, there isn't a "God," or higher power per se, because nothing lasts forever.

Which brings me to my second question, If the Buddha isn't a higher power what is meant by "taking refuge in the Buddha"?

ETA: My friend Dan posted this message under my account as he doesn't have internet/computer access, generally. I pointed him here as the area to post under considering he had a question about the historic buddha. I'm thinking maybe this should be moved to Religion/Philosophy.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

The Buddha is not a deity. Just a man.

Taking refuge in the Buddha means taking refuge in his teachings.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Lisa is correct.

Buddhism is not a religion, in the sense that it doesnt show the way to reconciliate a "god" to humans.

Buddha means THE AWAKED ONE, it is a man who can see the world from a very different perspective. That is all.

 

[bangdazap]

It might be better to say that Buddhism originally wasn't a religion, but many current variants of Buddhism are religions today.

 

[treble_head]

very true. The Buddha (not not NOT the fat guy that people rub the belly of for good luck) That's Ho Tai. Buddha is merely the name of a guy who "got it". It's sort of the name for a man who cut through the crap to see how we can all live our lives.

Buddhism is a tricky subject, because, as most teachings go, it has been indoctorinated into other beliefs. Taoism and Hinduism to name 2.

It is, in its truest form, a philosophy. It teaches moderation. In the Hinduist version, there is the eightfold path to be followed. In the Taoist version, there are many gods and demi gods. It confuses everything.

One of the original ideas is that Siddhartha (later the Buddha), was starving himself at the riverside and he heard a sitar teacher on the river talking to his student. "If you tighten the strings too much, they will break. If you keep them too loose, they will not play". And suddenly the Siddhartha became enlightened.

It all comes down to moderation. It's a good way to live. You just have to look at it at face value. For the most part, Buddhism is a good idea, but the changed and modified versions are complete crap. Okay, I'm a bit too far into this. I'mma take off.

 

[Batman Jr.]

It all comes down to moderation. It's a good way to live. You just have to look at it at face value. For the most part, Buddhism is a good idea, but the changed and modified versions are complete crap. Okay, I'm a bit too far into this. I'mma take off.

I guess when you had decided to include your "for the most part" caveat, you were minding the misogyny. Am I right?

 

[treble_head]

I guess when you had decided to include your "for the most part" caveat, you were minding the misogyny. Am I right?

No. Please don't take a complex issue and make it simple. The Taoist aspect of Buddhism allows for women to become enlightened as well, and as I explained (because it's so durned complex... *sigh*, and I know I'm defeating the original idea of Buddhism) to be Gods as well. It is well permeated throughout Buddhist culture, especially in China. Much literature and cinema as well, allow the male protagonist to achieve his goal (much against his original upbrining), only through the acceptence of his female side. *see Jui Kuen a.k.a. The Drunken Master (1978) starring Jackie Chan*

My caveat is that many people look at the teachings of the Buddha (whomever that is, or was...) and see only the original form (starving and suffering) as its base. The Buddha accepted that moderation was best. The original Siddhartha Gautama (the original Buddha) died from a stomach rupture, most likely due to his starving of himself in the initial steps of understanding what most of us already get to know now.

Taoism and Buddhism are so closely aligned (mostly due to Chinese "unification" in the Han Dynasty, that it is very hard to look at one from the other and see much difference.

There are many devout Buddhists in China and Japan who walk down stairs on their elbows, or walk across stone fields, or hit themselves with bricks to show their "humbleness". This seems obviosly wrong, but it's similar to what many "Christians" have done in the past and do to this day.

My caveat was simply to let people understand that belief can be a very bad thing, especially when it becomes FAITH. The Buddha is merely a representation on how to live life, and, like most philosophies and religions, had, and has become bastardized for someone's specific belief.

Oh man, did this take way longer than I wanted it to. Sorry about that. Not trying to teach a class here. I could get paid for that. Anyway, there's my answer, and reply if you want to hear more of my bullcrap on the subject.

Oh, and is mysogeny involved? You bet. Name me a belief or religion that doesn't put the male side in front and center. However, Buddhism and especially Taoism has a call for female power that most others do not.

 

[ahoneycutt]

treble_head: Thanks for the reply, and thanks to all of you as well.

I welcome any suggestions as to books that may be helpful on understanding the concept of what "buddha nature" is and/or was. If any of you know some titles I might read that focus on Buddhism and the Buddha from a more historical standpoint, I would welcome that information as well.

Thanks very much,
Andy

-- Edited for typos.