[Buddha-l] Re: Was Buddha a Buddhist

[Mike Austin]

In message <854981455.20060526141514 at kungzhi.org>, Benito Carral 
<bcarral at kungzhi.org> writes
>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.

That's OK. My interests are in neither of these, per se, but in what the 
teachings and practices are that eliminate dukkha, so I can use them. It 
may be that there are many of these behind superficial presentations.  I 
appreciate that your interest, on this particular occasion at least,  is 
more from an historical perspective.


>   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?

The Buddha as the 'mind' behind the dharma teachings, accessible through 
putting those teachings into practice: that is the Buddha I want to know 
about.  The historical Buddha is the same as Siddartha, renamed after an 
historical event called Buddha's enlightenment. This teaches me nothing, 
unless I unravel what is meant by 'buddha' ('awakened one') for myself.


>> 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)

The Buddhist list was merged with the Buddha-L list several years ago. I 
was subscribed to both. They met different, shall we say, 'markets'. But 
I still suggest that the teachings of the Buddha - the dharma - are what 
characterises Buddhists rather that the historical figure. That is why I 
drew the distinction between Buddhists and Buddhologists.  Otherwise, it 
tends to become mere history. Then, even in a purely academic discussion 
'buddhist' list, I would have thought that the emphasis would be largely 
on particular distinguishing aspects of the Buddha - his achievement and 
how he got there. Just being a historical figure is rather mundane.


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

OK, I will leave you to it then.

-- 
Metta
Mike Austin