Christmas Buddha Question

[ComeHome2Rome]

My Christmas Holiday was spend with family and my cousin brought her Buddhist friend to be with us. He was given Christmas presents, one of which was a little statue of Buddha being fat and happy. He was asked if this was the “right” Buddha because there were many different kinds of Buddha statues at the store: skinny Buddha, fat and happy Buddha, fat and mad Buddha, Buddha with tons of jewelry on, Buddha with his hands over his head and more.

He said no. It was not the right Buddha. This Buddha he said is the one that many Buddhists worship who don’t really know the “real” Buddhism.

He then said that Prince Siddhartha (Buddha) wrote many books about how to practice Buddhism and that each time the Prince wrote a new book he would always say “ignore all my prior teachings. they were all wrong. only pay attention to this new book because this is the correct way.” The Prince is said to have written this time and time and time and time again with each and every new book he wrote.

Our Christmas guest said that he practices the “real” teachings of Buddha because he only listens to the teachings of the Prince’s last book written at the end of his life. I have to wonder if the Prince had lived any longer would he have written another book beginning the same way as those before it? "ignore all my prior teachings. they were all wrong. only pay attention to this new book because this is the correct way."

My question to all Buddhists here is Why should we believe anything Prince Siddhartha taught at any point in his life, if he constantly said that he’d gotten it wrong? How are we find any of his teachings credible?

 

[LDNCatholic]

Hi,

The fat Buddha is actually not Buddha at all. At least not the Buddha.

It is a depiction of a Chinese folk deity who may or may not have been a Chinese Buddhist monk around 1000 years ago.

Some Buddhists consider him a Buddha (again, not the Buddha), while others consider him a bodhisattva.

 

[cemiller]

That is very interesting. I really don’t know much about Buddism. Does anyone have any sources to reference this to? I would think it would be a rather strong point show someone who is looking is that direction. Like you said, how can you believe the last book (not saying that there isn’t anything good in them), when there probably would have been another one dismissing everything he said in the last one if he lived long enough to write it?

 

[rossum]

He then said that Prince Siddhartha (Buddha) wrote many books about how to practice Buddhism and that each time the Prince wrote a new book he would always say “ignore all my prior teachings. they were all wrong. only pay attention to this new book because this is the correct way.” The Prince is said to have written this time and time and time and time again with each and every new book he wrote.

The Buddha wrote as many books as Jesus: none. His words were remembered and written down later. Already I find your source untrustworthy.

Our Christmas guest said that he practices the “real” teachings of Buddha because he only listens to the teachings of the Prince’s last book written at the end of his life. I have to wonder if the Prince had lived any longer would he have written another book beginning the same way as those before it? "ignore all my prior teachings. they were all wrong. only pay attention to this new book because this is the correct way."

There are some Japanese sects which follow this idea: Nichiren and, within Nichiren, Soka Gakkai are the most common in the West. They follow the Lotus sutra.

My question to all Buddhists here is Why should we believe anything Prince Siddhartha taught at any point in his life, if he constantly said that he’d gotten it wrong? How are we find any of his teachings credible?

At no point in any of his teaching does the Buddha say that any of his teaching was wrong. All of his teaching is right for the audience to which he spoke.

If you want to explain arithmetic to a two year old child you will not explain it in the same way that you would explain arithmetic to an advanced postgraduate in Mathematics. A two year old does not need to know the Peano Axioms, the postgraduate has to. The Buddha taught people as he found then, giving them as much as they could understand. A two year old child is told that 1 + 1 = 2. The postgraduate knows that 1 + 1 = 10 in binary. Both explanations are correct for the audience to which they are delivered. Only a bad teacher would swap the explanations. The Buddha was not a bad teacher.

Different sutras were taught to different people at different times. The contents of the sutras vary with who is being taught. People are different so the sutras are different.

rossum

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

The Buddha wrote as many books as Jesus: none. His words were remembered and written down later. Already I find your source untrustworthy.

rossum

Hi Rossum are you a convert to Buddhism?

“my source” is our family friend who has been a practicing Buddhist his entire life just like his parents before him. He says that the Prince, now known as the Buddha, did write many books although it’s possible that he dictated and delegated the actually “writing” to one of his followers during his life.

 

[rossum]

Hi Rossum are you a convert to Buddhism?

I was brought up Christian. I became atheist at about age 14 due to the “unless you are exactly like us you are going to hell” attitude that was far to prevalent. Atheism did not satisfy me either, there is more to life than pure materialism. I looked again at Christianity, also Islam and Hinduism before settling on Buddhism at age 19. I chose Buddhism because it delivers on what it promises: peace, happiness and nirvana. Two out of three so far and working on the third.

“my source” is our family friend who has been a practicing Buddhist his entire life just like his parents before him. He says that the Prince, now known as the Buddha, did write many books although it’s possible that he dictated and delegated the actually “writing” to one of his followers during his life.

The Buddha’s words were not written down, they were remembered and chanted. They were only written down many years later. If you look at the earliest scriptures (the Pali canon) you will see that they are full of repetitions and numerical lists. Both techniques to make them more easily remembered. In ancient India scriptures were far too important to be written down. The oral preservation of the Rig Veda is a good example.

rossum

 

[Hastrman]

In ancient India scriptures were far too important to be written down. The oral preservation of the Rig Veda is a good example.

Or rather, in ancient India the Brahmins retained their caste-role by being the only ones who could chant Vedic Sanskrit properly. The Buddhists in India retained the habit of keeping religion oral (the sound of mantras is thought to have power, in western branches of esoteric Buddhism), even though they rejected caste.

Once Buddhism spread to China, with an ancient tradition of powerful writing, both the written and chanted word became important—mostly with the phonetic rendering of mantras in Chinese characters, but in Japanese Shingon also Sanskrit written in the Siddham script.

But that thing about “all of his teaching is right for the audience to which he spoke”: that could easily be misconstrued. Buddhism doesn’t believe truth is relative to the audience. At least the Mahayana sects (and therefore also Vajrayana) believe that “incomplete” teachings are delivered to those who would be led into error by more complete teaching, since they’d misunderstand it. Every sect, of course, then considers its own lineage to have received the full teaching (which makes sense, otherwise you wouldn’t be that sect).

 

[rossum]

But that thing about “all of his teaching is right for the audience to which he spoke”: that could easily be misconstrued. Buddhism doesn’t believe truth is relative to the audience. At least the Mahayana sects (and therefore also Vajrayana) believe that “incomplete” teachings are delivered to those who would be led into error by more complete teaching, since they’d misunderstand it. Every sect, of course, then considers its own lineage to have received the full teaching (which makes sense, otherwise you wouldn’t be that sect).

If I told a small child that 1 + 1 = 10 in binary then that small child would very probably misunderstand what I said. The Buddha tailored his speech to his audience so that they would be able to understand correctly.

Even today, the written version of Vajrayana texts are not very useful without initiation into the parallel oral explanation. Knowing that the written words say “pink fish” does not help when the underlying oral explanation is “red herring”. The written texts are deliberately obscure in order to limit the number of people who can understand them. Some Vajrayana methods are dangerous in the wrong hands.

rossum

 

[SecretBeliever]

Rossum, that’s interesting. I didn’t know that Nichiren Shoshu and Soka Gakkai’s teachings were constantly updated, so to speak. When I was Jodo Shinshu, we were constantly cautioned about Nichiren Shoshu and Soka Gakkai. They told us they were dangerous sects to belong to and to stay away from them. However, we did not consider the Lotus Sutra itself to be in any way dangerous. Useless trivia: it just popped into my head, the movie “The Last Detail” about a couple of sailors having to escort a sailor accused of stealing to the brig. They took the train and during a layover they fell in with some hippies going to a temple: at which they were chanting “Nam Myoho Renge Kyo” – “I trust the Lotus Sutra” – so I guess they were probably Soka Gakkai. I don’t think Nichiren Shoshu had been well established in the US, and come to think of it I haven’t heard about Soka Gakkai at all in several years.

Oh, Rossum, I forgot to ask, if you don’t mind – what sect do you belong to? Had you tried different sects, and if so, how did you settle on where you are? Just curious.

 

[rossum]

When I was Jodo Shinshu, we were constantly cautioned about Nichiren Shoshu and Soka Gakkai. They told us they were dangerous sects to belong to and to stay away from them.

That is a fairly common opinion among non-Nichiren Buddhists.

However, we did not consider the Lotus Sutra itself to be in any way dangerous.

It isn’t. It is a superb work. I prefer the Perfection of Wisdom sutras to the Lotus sutra, but that is a matter of personal preference.

I don’t think Nichiren Shoshu had been well established in the US, and come to think of it I haven’t heard about Soka Gakkai at all in several years.

Soka Gakkai tends to market itself as “SG International” these days.

Oh, Rossum, I forgot to ask, if you don’t mind – what sect do you belong to? Had you tried different sects, and if so, how did you settle on where you are? Just curious.

I started as Theravada. I have retained a lot of Theravada practice but my theory is now Mahayana-Madhyamika. I have tried some Vajrayana, which did not suit me – I am useless at visualisation. Zen practice suits me much more so I have incorporated a little of that as well. Typical of a Western Buddhist, a bit of a mish-mash.

rossum

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

I appreciate hearing your personal story.

After reading your message, I Facebooked our family friend who was born into Buddhism, his grandparents are the ones who had converted, continues to say
“The Buddha (Shakyamuni, Goutama Buddha, Siddhartha) actually wrote the Sutras in Sanskrit and various people translated them while he was alive and after he died.”

I know him to be a faithful practicing Buddhist and from reading your story I’m assuming you are as well.

This leaves me even further confused because there seem to be 2 completely different versions of the origin of Buddhism and 2 completely different versions of the history of the teachings of the Buddha.

How can a Buddhist ever be confident that he or she is following true Buddhism?

I was brought up Christian. I became atheist at about age 14 due to the “unless you are exactly like us you are going to hell” attitude that was far to prevalent. Atheism did not satisfy me either, there is more to life than pure materialism. I looked again at Christianity, also Islam and Hinduism before settling on Buddhism at age 19. I chose Buddhism because it delivers on what it promises: peace, happiness and nirvana. Two out of three so far and working on the third.

The Buddha’s words were not written down, they were remembered and chanted. They were only written down many years later. If you look at the earliest scriptures (the Pali canon) you will see that they are full of repetitions and numerical lists. Both techniques to make them more easily remembered. In ancient India scriptures were far too important to be written down. The oral preservation of the Rig Veda is a good example.

rossum

 

[steveb1]

I know him to be a faithful practicing Buddhist and from reading your story I’m assuming you are as well.

This leaves me even further confused because there seem to be 2 completely different versions of the origin of Buddhism and 2 completely different versions of the history of the teachings of the Buddha.

How can a Buddhist ever be confident that he or she is following true Buddhism?

Of course, Christianity too, has at least two competing origin stories - one the semi-historical Petrine-Pauline story and one the pleromic-projection Gnostic-Docetic story; and more recently the Mythicist story has resurged in the work of Robert M. Price, Earl Doherty, G.A. Wells and others. Christians of all sects and denominations need to choose between their Faith’s competing “birth narratives”.

For what it’s worth - and it may not be much - I have never heard or read that the Buddha wrote any books or wrote any teaching. As was the case with Jesus, Buddha’s disciples orally transmitted the teachings. Then - in a similar manner to Christianity - the Buddha’s teachings were eventually written down and then gathered and “canonized” at various Councils. Then - again, similar to Christianity’s Constantine - King Ashoka converted and promoted Buddhism in all his lands.

I would hazard the opinion that being Buddhist is less about following Buddha or Buddhism, and more about practicing the teachings and doing the contemplative exercises. When the Buddha was dying and his disciples were grieving, he comforted them by saying that they would not need him any more, because they now had the Dharma. The Dharma was greater than the historical personage Siddhartha Gotama. So ideally, Buddhists enter the Dharma by living the practices - whether or not those practices all originated with the historical Gotama.

Jodo Shinshu, the Buddhist school to which I adhere, contains some features which on the surface look like direct contradictions (say) to the Theravadan Buddha, and which make it look “heretical” to some Buddhist eyes. But again the guiding principle is the efficacy of the teaching: does it or does it not confirm the Dharma and lead to Enlightenment … not whether or not it duplicates everything the Theravadan Buddha is claimed to have done and taught.

I would again hazard the suggestion that the core Buddhist issue concerns the Dharma as a living force which manifests through different Buddhas in different times; and which calls the practitioner to experience for him/herself Emptiness, Nirvana, Bodhi, Infinite Compassion, Infinite Wisdom, and the other sacred states inherent in the tradition.

The Buddha offered his Way as an experiment, inviting his hearers to “try this - then get back to me”. He did not so much claim a dogma as initiate experiments that cultivated pure mind. Therefore the teaching mattered more than the teacher, the method more than the coach. So in pragmatic terms, if Buddhism works - i.e., does what it claims to do - for a person, that fact confirms Buddhism in quite a different matter than trying to confirm it historically by an Asiatic form of “apostolic succession” or other historical linkage to Gotama.

 

[rossum]

The Buddha offered his Way as an experiment, inviting his hearers to “try this - then get back to me”. He did not so much claim a dogma as initiate experiments that cultivated pure mind. Therefore the teaching mattered more than the teacher, the method more than the coach. So in pragmatic terms, if Buddhism works - i.e., does what it claims to do - for a person, that fact confirms Buddhism in quite a different matter than trying to confirm it historically by an Asiatic form of “apostolic succession” or other historical linkage to Gotama.

I agree totally. Buddhism is a path, and the whole point is to follow the path. Sitting in your room collecting different maps of the path and discussing their relative merits gets you no nearer your goal.

Buddhism is not about orthodoxy, correct belief, but it is instead about orthopraxy, correct action. Buddhism is something you do rather than something you believe.To avoid all evil,
to cultivate good,
and to cleanse one’s mind -
this is the teaching of the Buddhas.

– Dhammapada 14:5

rossum

 

[steveb1]

I agree totally. Buddhism is a path, and the whole point is to follow the path. Sitting in your room collecting different maps of the path and discussing their relative merits gets you no nearer your goal.

Buddhism is not about orthodoxy, correct belief, but it is instead about orthopraxy, correct action. Buddhism is something you do rather than something you believe.To avoid all evil,
to cultivate good,
and to cleanse one’s mind -
this is the teaching of the Buddhas.

– Dhammapada 14:5

rossum

Thanks, Rossum, for the good, succinct definitions

 

[ConstantineTG]

Hi,

The fat Buddha is actually not Buddha at all. At least not the Buddha.

It is a depiction of a Chinese folk deity who may or may not have been a Chinese Buddhist monk around 1000 years ago.

Some Buddhists consider him a Buddha (again, not the Buddha), while others consider him a bodhisattva.

What do you mean “the” Buddha? From what I know about Buddhism, isn’t there like 17 or 18 different Buddhas? Aren’t they just regular human beings who have reached enlightenment?

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

Hi Rossum,

I just received a new Facebook message, Lincoln & his family are Nichiren Daishonin Buddhists & he says that the writings used are from the Sanskrit.

 

[Jessup]

From what I was taught, Buddah never claimed to be devine, “just awake” he was a skinny starving man. At one point he was starved nearly to death, when his followers force fed his unconscious body bread and water amongst his fasting. The fat Buddha sold in stores, was invented in Hawaii sometime in the 60’s as a tourist item. But there are 3 sects of Buddhism. If I get the time to look for one of my world religions books, I’ll site some information and name the 3 sects.
:thumbsup:Cheers!:thumbsup:

 

[silentstar]

Hi Rossum,

I just received a new Facebook message, Lincoln & his family are Nichiren Daishonin Buddhists & he says that the writings used are from the Sanskrit.

I am not a Buddhist but I did a quick search on wikipedia, on nichiren diashonin buddhism. Wikipedia is descriptive but not authoritative; however it is free. it sounds like - from my really brief read that this type of Buddhism is associated with Japan in WW2, with an anti-militaristic approach, and with some degree of controversy and mutual excommunications with people from other Buddhist sects/branches. However it has also gotten a lot of praise. I would suggest if you are still following this thread to start with wikipedia and then follow up on the links for more authoritative source. That is often what I do when/if I want information and it’s clear there is controversy so wikipedia may not be able to cover the complexity of it.

However it also seems to be emphasized that the stress is on practicing Buddhism in daily life, as earlier posters have said.