[Buddha-l] Was Buddha a Buddhist

[Erik Hoogcarspel]

jkirk schreef:

> "Perhaps the issue comes to a question of whether we are investigating 
> doctrine or popular practice." James Blumenthal
> ---------------
> These are at least two dimensions of approaching the issue of 
> religious identity, when it becomes an issue. As you noted, James, it 
> is not a big issue with the Newars of Nepal so far as worship is 
> concerned. It may however be an issue for Newars so far as 
> samskaras--life rituals--are concerned (although I'm not sure about it 
> on that score.) 
> We also see that among Thais and Burmans, both mainly Theravada 
> Buddhist, Hindu gods and local spirits are also worshipped, along with 
> the Buddha, who is usually treated as a god in popular practice 
> despite what the monks and preceptors teach.  So among these 
> populations the concept of anatta gets short shrift. Burmans believe 
> in the butterfly soul, the entity that transmigrates from lifetime to 
> lifetime. This doesn't correspond to anatta. Doctrine rarely converges 
> with practice in popular religion. 
>  
> In the Pali suttas, the Buddha often debates with practicing Jains or 
> members of various 
> sampradayas who challenge him as to the efficacy or truth of his 
> teachings. He wins these debates, of course. In this instance we can 
> see that he, the Buddha, is making distinctions between what he 
> teaches and what they teach--doctrinal distinctions. In that sense I'd 
> say he is making exclusive claims about his teachings. The sutta 
> stories reveal that some of the preceptors of the other sampradayas 
> are insistent on the superiority of their views as against his. Thus, 
> one could infer that there was a deal of exclusiveness going on in 
> those days, probably also with some folks running around from teacher 
> to teacher, seeking the best bets for salvation. 
>  
> Joanna  
>  

Maybe in the Buddha's days there was foremost a difference between 
brahmins, householders and sramana's and the Buddhists were just one 
among the different groups of sramana's who all greed on the 
unsatisfactoryness of daily life some kind of personal liberation. 
Lateron, after the rise of devotion cults in hinduïsm and buddhism, 
things became complicated, because rituals were exchanged. But even in 
the Bhagavadgita and in the Patañjaliyogasutra's there's a strong 
buddhist influence. When you finally look at tantrism, the dividing line 
becomes even more blurry, because some mahasiddha's are worshipped both 
in hinduïsm and buddhism and they don't seem to care about any doctrinal 
differences. Some tantra's also have many hindu elements. Kalacakra is 
Shiva, so is Mahakala.

-- 
Groet

Erik


www.xs4all.nl/~jehms
weblog http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/pub/blogs/blog.php?uid=2950