Did Siddharta Gautama have battle experience?

A forum for those wishing to discuss Buddhist history and teachings in the Western academic manner, referencing appropriate sources.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Did Siddharta Gautama have battle experience?

Post by Malcolm »

Crazywisdom wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 10:05 pm
Malcolm wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 9:40 pm
I don't think it is quite that simple. We are divorced by two thousand years from the conditions on the ground that led to the rise of Mahāyāna, etc.
They lied because that was cool 2000 years ago?
No one considers dramatizations to be lies. For example, Plato’s Socrates was based on a real person, but was used as a literary device to express Plato’s ideas. In other words, Plato always put the best argument in the mouth of Socrates, but there is little doubt that these words were rarely if ever the actual words of Socrates. Likewise, Mahayana arose at the same time as the Ramayana and so on, use similar themes, etc. Is the Ramayana or the Bhagavad Gita a lie? Did Ravanna conspire to steal Sita? Was there ever even a person named Ravanna or Sita? If there was never a person named Ravanna, then what does that do to the credibility of the Lanka in your view?

Or what about the fact that the Blazing Tongue of the Dakini tantra, the principle source on the origins of Mahakala and Mahakali, borrows the narrative of Shiva destroying Tripura in order to explain the origins of Mahakala and borrows the narrative of Ravanna seducing Sita to explain the origins of Shri Devi and Remati? Is this a lie, or is there something else to be considered in these examples?

You seem to be making the claim that if the Mahayana sutras and tantras do not portray actual historical events, if tales of the lineage like Buddha flying to Oddiyana to meet Indrabhuti I, or giving the Kalacakra inside a stupa in South India, are dramatic stories rather than historical events, it’s all a bust. You might feel that way, but I don’t.
Norwegian
Posts: 2632
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:36 pm

Re: Did Siddharta Gautama have battle experience?

Post by Norwegian »

Malcolm wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 1:09 pm
Crazywisdom wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 10:05 pm
Malcolm wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 9:40 pm
I don't think it is quite that simple. We are divorced by two thousand years from the conditions on the ground that led to the rise of Mahāyāna, etc.
They lied because that was cool 2000 years ago?
No one considers dramatizations to be lies. For example, Plato’s Socrates was based on a real person, but was used as a literary device to express Plato’s ideas. In other words, Plato always put the best argument in the mouth of Socrates, but there is little doubt that these words were rarely if ever the actual words of Socrates. Likewise, Mahayana arose at the same time as the Ramayana and so on, use similar themes, etc. Is the Ramayana or the Bhagavad Gita a lie? Did Ravanna conspire to steal Sita? Was there ever even a person named Ravanna or Sita? If there was never a person named Ravanna, then what does that do to the credibility of the Lanka in your view?

Or what about the fact that the Blazing Tongue of the Dakini tantra, the principle source on the origins of Mahakala and Mahakali, borrows the narrative of Shiva destroying Tripura in order to explain the origins of Mahakala and borrows the narrative of Ravanna seducing Sita to explain the origins of Shri Devi and Remati? Is this a lie, or is there something else to be considered in these examples?

You seem to be making the claim that if the Mahayana sutras and tantras do not portray actual historical events, if tales of the lineage like Buddha flying to Oddiyana to meet Indrabhuti I, or giving the Kalacakra inside a stupa in South India, are dramatic stories rather than historical events, it’s all a bust. You might feel that way, but I don’t.
Malcolm, do you think that some (using "some" as the word here, not being limited by a particular number) of the amazing stories that are described in the sutras for example, were visionary encounters, in the minds of one or more people? So there's Vulture's Peak, being filled with a vast assembly, something that is obviously physically impossible, is it likely that this was something that could have taken place in the direct experience of those being there, such as the Buddha and/or more? And likewise Vimalakirti with all of his guests, etc.

So one could then say, while it's very likely that many of these spectacular events are literary devices, with a very specific purpose behind them, other events did happen, just not in the way we would normally consider. And so if this is the case, it is still not proper to call them actual "historic events" however, since someone's experience in this way, cannot ever be considered as "history".

What do you think about this possibility?

For what it's worth, something being historic or not, is not important to me, in the context of Buddhadharma.
Natan
Posts: 3685
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: Did Siddharta Gautama have battle experience?

Post by Natan »

Malcolm wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 1:09 pm
Crazywisdom wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 10:05 pm
Malcolm wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 9:40 pm
I don't think it is quite that simple. We are divorced by two thousand years from the conditions on the ground that led to the rise of Mahāyāna, etc.
They lied because that was cool 2000 years ago?
No one considers dramatizations to be lies. For example, Plato’s Socrates was based on a real person, but was used as a literary device to express Plato’s ideas. In other words, Plato always put the best argument in the mouth of Socrates, but there is little doubt that these words were rarely if ever the actual words of Socrates. Likewise, Mahayana arose at the same time as the Ramayana and so on, use similar themes, etc. Is the Ramayana or the Bhagavad Gita a lie? Did Ravanna conspire to steal Sita? Was there ever even a person named Ravanna or Sita? If there was never a person named Ravanna, then what does that do to the credibility of the Lanka in your view?

Or what about the fact that the Blazing Tongue of the Dakini tantra, the principle source on the origins of Mahakala and Mahakali, borrows the narrative of Shiva destroying Tripura in order to explain the origins of Mahakala and borrows the narrative of Ravanna seducing Sita to explain the origins of Shri Devi and Remati? Is this a lie, or is there something else to be considered in these examples?

You seem to be making the claim that if the Mahayana sutras and tantras do not portray actual historical events, if tales of the lineage like Buddha flying to Oddiyana to meet Indrabhuti I, or giving the Kalacakra inside a stupa in South India, are dramatic stories rather than historical events, it’s all a bust. You might feel that way, but I don’t.
It's an interesting issue. So in Guhyagarbha the wrathful mandala chapter 15 gives this long story about how Heruka tamed Tarpa Nagpo. It is an allegory. An allegory has a purpose, it is meant to crystalize a value. In this case the value is the most essential point of tantra, the mandala, mantra, etc.

In the case of Ramayana and Bhagavat Gita probably these are somewhat like that, but these were contrived by Brahmins establish themselves as the heirs of Rishis, the kingmakers and right hand to ancient bloodlines. So, total lie. Motives for control. In the tantra example you give, it would fall under allegory. And Buddhist tantra tends to try to use allegory like this to upend the status quo, which was Brahmanism.

But these are meant to be stories. Fiction IS a lie. Maybe no one but the educated knows that. But it is a lie. It's lie meant to reveal a truth. That's why they give out prizes.

What is the point of telling a fictional story about how a sutra or tantra was found? It is not meant to reveal a truth. It is meant to legitimize it and hide the truth, which is Buddha never said it. Whether he would approve is another question.

Bronkworst uses his method to prove or attempt at least that there are many things in the canon which Buddha never taught. I think most relevant to this discussion is liberating knowledge. He is more or less saying Buddha never talked much about the emptiness of dharmas and therefore that all of Mahayana and Vajrayana would have to be the fruit of a particular school of scholars who focused on that being the most important point. Whereas, for Buddha it was one important point but not the most important point. The most important point was seeing the end of suffering.

Insofar as the emptiness of skandhas are the emptiness of dharmas, of course the Mahayana, like Heart Sutra and Vajrayana like mandala of five dhyani buddhas is useful, like a tool in a toolbox of tools, but I'm afraid unnecessary. They lead to the same point, perhaps with better precision. But the fanciful notions about buddhahood being the major and minor marks, emanations on planeta and all that are in the category of uselessness.
Last edited by Natan on Sat Jul 31, 2021 3:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Did Siddharta Gautama have battle experience?

Post by Malcolm »

Crazywisdom wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 3:09 pm
It's an interesting issue. So in Guhyagarbha the wrathful mandala chapter 15 gives this long story about how Heruka tamed Tarpa Nagpo. It is an allegory. An allegory has a purpose, it is meant to crystalize a value. In this case the value is the most essential point of tantra, the mandala, mantra, etc.

In the case of Ramayana and Bhagavat Gita probably these are somewhat like that, but these were contrived by Brahmins establish themselves as the heirs of Rishis, the kingmakers and right hand to ancient bloodlines. So, total lie. Motives for control.

In the tantra example you give, it would fall under allegory. And Buddhist tantra tends to try to use allegory like this to upend the status quo, which was Brahmanism.
Seems to me you are using a double standard: fiction if it is nonbuddhist, allegory if it is buddhist.
But these are meant to be stories. Fiction IS a lie.
No, fiction is not necessarily a lie, as you admit above. It can be intentional, to make a point.
Maybe no one but the educated knows that. But it is a lie. It's lie meant to reveal a truth. That's why they give out prizes.
A lie, strictly speaking, is something said to deceive someone else. But I see no evidence of deliberate deception.
What is the point of telling a fictional story about how a sutra or tantra was found? It is not meant to reveal a truth. It is meant to legitimize it and hide the truth, which is Buddha never said it.
Only in a most narrow, literalist sense. And there are myriad strategies to justify what people set down as the words of the Buddha, from declaring the Buddha never said anything to the idea that the Buddha's words are interpreted variably by whoever hears them. When it comes to the Tantras, for example, they do not even necessarily claim to be taught by the Buddha. For example, the tradition of the Laghusamvara Tantra claims it was never taught by the historical Buddha, but rather, by the nirmāṇakāya who presently dwells in the twenty-four places in Jambudvipa. Is this a lie, a legend, or a myth?
Bronkworst uses his method to prove or attempt at least that there are many things in the canon which Buddha never taught. I think most relevant to this discussion is liberating knowledge. He is more or less saying Buddha never talked much about the emptiness of dharmas and therefore that all of Mahayana and Vajrayana would have to be the fruit of a particular school of scholars who focused on that being the most important point. Whereas, for Buddha it was one important point but not the most important point. The most important point was seeing the end of suffering.
Sure, but I brought up Bronkhorst mainly because his research calls into question a lot of earlier European ideas about India circa 400 BCE, ideas which have been widely adopted by Indians as well as Westerners. As to your last point, there are many Theravadins who would likely agree with him.
Insofar as the emptiness of skandhas are the emptiness of dharmas, of course the Mahayana, like Heart Sutra and Vajrayana like mandala of five dhyani buddhas is useful, like a tool in a toolbox of tools, but I'm afraid unnecessary. They lead to the same point, perhaps with better precision. But the fanciful notions about buddhahood being the major and minor marks, emanations on planeta and all that are in the category of uselessness.
The PP Sūtras dispensed with the idea of buddhahood being identifiable in characteristics.

In any case, no one ever said Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna were necessary for liberation, the claim is that they are necessary for buddhahood. Liberation and buddhahood are not the same thing.
Natan
Posts: 3685
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: Did Siddharta Gautama have battle experience?

Post by Natan »

Malcolm wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 4:50 pm [

Seems to me you are using a double standard: fiction if it is nonbuddhist, allegory if it is buddhist.


No not that. I'm saying there are allegories, fictions, which are lies with a purpose, and damn lies.
No, fiction is not necessarily a lie, as you admit above. It can be intentional, to make a point.
.
First day of lit major, you learn fiction is a lie. I already said it is a lie to reveal a truth. When novels were invented there was no fiction section in the bookstore. Again Socrates didn't like fictional plays. He didn't like that they were lying.

A lie, strictly speaking, is something said to deceive someone else. But I see no evidence of deliberate deception.


You never read a book where the narrator beings with, She walked into my office smoking a cigarette? Any fiction is meant to distort perception. It is no fun unless you don't know it's a fiction. Of course it's a deliberate deception, like a costume.


Only in a most narrow, literalist sense. And there are myriad strategies to justify what people set down as the words of the Buddha, from declaring the Buddha never said anything to the idea that the Buddha's words are interpreted variably by whoever hears them. When it comes to the Tantras, for example, they do not even necessarily claim to be taught by the Buddha. For example, the tradition of the Laghusamvara Tantra claims it was never taught by the historical Buddha, but rather, by the nirmāṇakāya who presently dwells in the twenty-four places in Jambudvipa. Is this a lie, a legend, or a myth?
Which Nirmanakaya is that? Vajradakini? Visionary.

Guhyagarbha was taught in Akansitha by Samanthabhadra. Visionary, because these are not purported to be fictions meant to reveal a hidden truth, especially in the Chakrasamvara situation. It is meant to say this happened there. How can that be? It's a miraculous claim.

In Guhyagarbha there is the teaching the Akansitha is in the heart chakra. Thus, it is a intuited tantra. This would be a poetic device.

The PP Sūtras dispensed with the idea of buddhahood being identifiable in characteristics.

In any case, no one ever said Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna were necessary for liberation, the claim is that they are necessary for buddhahood. Liberation and buddhahood are not the same thing.
Sure Buddhahood, and you have to swallow hook line and sinker for all the extra stuff Mahayana and Vajrayana say is missing from "liberation," also as Bronkworst points out Mahayana/Vajrayana is based on the fallacy that reality is just words.
Last edited by Natan on Sat Jul 31, 2021 6:13 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Did Siddharta Gautama have battle experience?

Post by Malcolm »

Crazywisdom wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 5:23 pm
Which Nirmanakaya is that? Vajradakini? Visionary.
The nirmāṇakāya of Mahāvajradhara by the name of Śṛī Heruka. So, not visionary, meant to be taken literally as you indicate below, which is why people spend time going to the 24 places, and renaming place in Tibet after them, etc.
especially in the Chakrasamvara situation. It is meant to say this happened there. How can that be? It's a miraculous claim.
This is one of the bases to the claim that in this degenerate age, the Laghusamvara cycle is the most effective.
Sure Buddhahood, and you have to swallow hook line and sinker for all the extra stuff Mahayana and Vajrayana say is missing from "liberation,"
Principally, what is missing from liberation is two-fold omniscience, that's what you have to swallow. But that omniscience is limited.

also as Bronkworst points out Mahayana/Vajrayana is based on the fallacy that reality is just words.
Where does he make this claim? He is incorrect, of course.
Natan
Posts: 3685
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: Did Siddharta Gautama have battle experience?

Post by Natan »

Malcolm wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 7:43 pm
The nirmāṇakāya of Mahāvajradhara by the name of Śṛī Heruka. So, not visionary, meant to be taken literally as you indicate below, which is why people spend time going to the 24 places, and renaming place in Tibet after them, etc.
That's a truth claim, see?

This is one of the bases to the claim that in this degenerate age, the Laghusamvara cycle is the most effective.
So if that's true it will be most effective. Is it? How can we know?

Principally, what is missing from liberation is two-fold omniscience, that's what you have to swallow. But that omniscience is limited.

Yeah I get this. We have been over this. Related with liberative paths. See how this converges?
Where does he make this claim? He is incorrect, of course.
He remarks on Nagarjuna using a linguistic example of, "when I traveled in the road, I traveled on the road," as proof of traveling twice. Nagarjuna uses this example to show the illusory nature of appearance. Bronkworst uses this example to show Nagarjuna's use of linguistic devices stems from a fallacious assumption in Mahayana, that reality is nominal. When in fact names are just labels atop felt experiences. Babies don't have words, but the have countless experiences. That's why they giggle and cry.
Last edited by Natan on Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:00 am, edited 2 times in total.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Did Siddharta Gautama have battle experience?

Post by Malcolm »

Crazywisdom wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:55 am He remarks on Nagarjuna using a linguistic example of, "when I traveled in the road, I traveled on the road," as proof of traveling twice. Nagarjuna uses this example to show the illusory nature of appearance. Bronkworst uses this example to show Nagarjuna's use of linguistic devices stems from a fallacious assumption in Mahayana, that reality is nominal. When in fact names are just labels atop felt experiences. Babies don't have words, but the have countless experiences. That's why they giggle and cry.
He is a historian, not a Buddhist I don’t expect him to grasp the nuances of Madhyamaka, rejections of moving movers, etc.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Did Siddharta Gautama have battle experience?

Post by Malcolm »

Crazywisdom wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:55 am
Malcolm wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 7:43 pm
The nirmāṇakāya of Mahāvajradhara by the name of Śṛī Heruka. So, not visionary, meant to be taken literally as you indicate below, which is why people spend time going to the 24 places, and renaming place in Tibet after them, etc.
That's a truth claim, see?
Not in any hard legal sense.

For example, another "truth" claim concerns the existence of a kingdom named Shambhala and a huge war that is supposed to happen with Muslims in 400 years or so. Some people take this literally. Other people see it as an allegory of a personal, spiritual battle, as it is presented in the gnosis chapter.

Kālacakra is recognized as a valid system today by everyone; but during the 14th century there was still considerable doubt about it's validity in Tibet.

All of these claims are truth claims for those who accept them, and are not truth claims for those who do not. For example, the treasure system is still widely rejected/ignored by many Tibetan Buddhists, especially in Geluk, Jonang, and more conservative bastions of Sakya.

So, in general, in Buddhadharma, one tends to ignore the scriptures for which one does not feel affinity, no one fears rejecting or ignoring the truth claims made by proponents of this or that school, and it has been this way since the rise of Mahāyāna, and even among śrāvaka schools we see this dynamic, i.e., "We don't read that sūtra, so it does not apply to us."


This is one of the bases to the claim that in this degenerate age, the Laghusamvara cycle is the most effective.
So if that's true it will be most effective. Is it? How can we know?
Well, practice five-fold Mahāmudra or Vajrayoginī in the Drigung system and find out.

I suspect these claims of effectiveness are a kind of puffery. Their validity rests on accepting certain assumptions.

The Laghusamvara system was certainly the most widely practiced tantric cycle in India. It has the most explanatory tantras, commentaries, and sādhanas. More of the Eighty-Four Mahāsiddhas practiced it than any other system. Today, it remains the most widely practice system in Tibetan Buddhism, extensively practiced in Sakya, Kagyu, and Gelug, with the central lineages in all three schools descending directly from Naropa, either through Mal Lotsawa Rinchen Drak (Sakya, Geluk) or Marpa Lotsawa (Dwagpo Kagyu, Geluk), and is practiced more widely than Hevajra, Guhyasamāja, Kālacakra, not to mention more obscure systems like Caturpitha, Mahāmaya, Candamahārośana, Buddhakāpala, and so on.

But more importantly, for Indians, the origin story of Heruka of the Laghusamvara has everything to do with the conquest of Shiva and Umadevi, sited in and around places in India that people actually travelled to and at one point, could identify with certainty. Later, when these pithas, upithas, and so on became less identifiable, the pilgrimage became an inner one, with the Ghantapāda body mandala system, etc.

None of these claims can be verified in any sort of objective way for anyone but oneself.
Natan
Posts: 3685
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: Did Siddharta Gautama have battle experience?

Post by Natan »

Malcolm wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:06 pm
Crazywisdom wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:55 am
Malcolm wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 7:43 pm
The nirmāṇakāya of Mahāvajradhara by the name of Śṛī Heruka. So, not visionary, meant to be taken literally as you indicate below, which is why people spend time going to the 24 places, and renaming place in Tibet after them, etc.
That's a truth claim, see?
Not in any hard legal sense.

For example, another "truth" claim concerns the existence of a kingdom named Shambhala and a huge war that is supposed to happen with Muslims in 400 years or so. Some people take this literally. Other people see it as an allegory of a personal, spiritual battle, as it is presented in the gnosis chapter.

Kālacakra is recognized as a valid system today by everyone; but during the 14th century there was still considerable doubt about it's validity in Tibet.

All of these claims are truth claims for those who accept them, and are not truth claims for those who do not. For example, the treasure system is still widely rejected/ignored by many Tibetan Buddhists, especially in Geluk, Jonang, and more conservative bastions of Sakya.

So, in general, in Buddhadharma, one tends to ignore the scriptures for which one does not feel affinity, no one fears rejecting or ignoring the truth claims made by proponents of this or that school, and it has been this way since the rise of Mahāyāna, and even among śrāvaka schools we see this dynamic, i.e., "We don't read that sūtra, so it does not apply to us."


This is one of the bases to the claim that in this degenerate age, the Laghusamvara cycle is the most effective.
So if that's true it will be most effective. Is it? How can we know?
Well, practice five-fold Mahāmudra or Vajrayoginī in the Drigung system and find out.

I suspect these claims of effectiveness are a kind of puffery. Their validity rests on accepting certain assumptions.

The Laghusamvara system was certainly the most widely practiced tantric cycle in India. It has the most explanatory tantras, commentaries, and sādhanas. More of the Eighty-Four Mahāsiddhas practiced it than any other system. Today, it remains the most widely practice system in Tibetan Buddhism, extensively practiced in Sakya, Kagyu, and Gelug, with the central lineages in all three schools descending directly from Naropa, either through Mal Lotsawa Rinchen Drak (Sakya, Geluk) or Marpa Lotsawa (Dwagpo Kagyu, Geluk), and is practiced more widely than Hevajra, Guhyasamāja, Kālacakra, not to mention more obscure systems like Caturpitha, Mahāmaya, Candamahārośana, Buddhakāpala, and so on.

But more importantly, for Indians, the origin story of Heruka of the Laghusamvara has everything to do with the conquest of Shiva and Umadevi, sited in and around places in India that people actually travelled to and at one point, could identify with certainty. Later, when these pithas, upithas, and so on became less identifiable, the pilgrimage became an inner one, with the Ghantapāda body mandala system, etc.

None of these claims can be verified in any sort of objective way for anyone but oneself.
Philosophers, logicians and mathematitians also talk about truth claims. But point taken. I have practiced this cycle for many years, so I guess I can admit it's effectiveness in tantric means. Still wondering if it's what Buddha had intended
Last edited by Natan on Sun Aug 01, 2021 5:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Did Siddharta Gautama have battle experience?

Post by Malcolm »

Crazywisdom wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 5:01 pm Philosophers, logicians and mathematitians also talk about truth claims. But point taken. I have practiced this cycle for many years, so I guess I can admit it's effectiveness in tantric means. Still wondering if it's what Buddha had intended
From our perspective, a buddha intended it. And it really depends on how much one thinks "Buddhism" is only the recorded words of a particular human being who lived in India roughly 2500 years ago.

But more to the point, we cannot expect our legends and myths to correspond to an empirical examination of facts in modern history, archaeology, and text criticism. And frankly, when it comes to practicing our traditions, we shouldn't really care. Empirical facts are part of impure vision, not the experiential vision of yogins and yoginis.
Post Reply

Return to “Academic Discussion”