[Buddha-l] Re: Was Buddha a Buddhist

[Benito Carral]

On Friday, May 26, 2006, Mike Austin wrote:

> 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.

   Come  one,  Mike,  we  were talking about Siddhattha
Gotama  (the  historical  Buddha),  we were not talking
about the Buddhas invented by the different traditions,
but trying to understand who Siddhattha was.

   One  can't know the Buddha because there is not only
one  Buddha.  For  example, the mythical Buddhas of the
Tibetan  traditions have little to do with the mythical
Buddhas of the Theravada or Chan traditions.

   I  always  teach my students to be clear about which
Buddha  we  are talking about--are we talking about the
historical  Buddha? or the Mazu's, Dogen's, or Mipham's
one? So, Mike, if you don't want to know the historical
Buddha, which one do you want to know about?

> From my limited experience, such historical knowledge
> has not really helped much to reduce dukkha.

   This  used  to  be  a  "Buddhist Academic Discussion
Forum."  It  seems  that  someone  decided to rename it
downplaying   the  "academic"  side  (see  the  current
description  on  the  web), but as far as I know, it is
not  restricted to orthodox discussion according to the
mainstream (or the western liberal) Buddhist schools.

   Anyway,  Mike,  we were talking about the historical
Buddha.

   Best wishes,

   Beni