[Buddha-l] Re: Was Buddha a Buddhist

[Mike Austin]

In message <711832323.20060526130535 at kungzhi.org>, Benito Carral 
<bcarral at kungzhi.org> writes

>> One  knows  the Buddha by knowing the dharma. Stories
>> from history play a very minor role in this.
>
>   If  you think that stories play a "very minor role,"
>it's  clear  that  you know little about how traditions
>works.

I say again,  stories from history only play a minor role in knowing the 
Buddha - the awakened one. On the other hand, they may well play a major 
role in knowing about Sidartha Gautama - the historical figure.  From my 
limited experience, such historical knowledge has not really helped much 
to reduce dukkha. In fact, if someone 'proved' that Sidartha Gautama was 
a mythical figure, it would not make the slightest difference to me.  So 
you are correct, I know little about how traditions work. But neither am 
I bothered.


>> Whereas  it could be debatable whether the Buddha was
>> a  Buddhist,  I  would  say  he  was  certainly not a
>> Buddhologist.
>
>   Maybe  I entered the wrong room, I thought this is a
>Buddhist discussion forum, isn't?

Yes. Have I gone off topic somewhere?

-- 
Metta
Mike Austin