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.
Tammuz
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2021 5:22 pm

Did Siddharta Gautama have battle experience?

Post by Tammuz »

This is not a Mahayana or Vajrayana topic, but I don't know where else to post the question to competent people.

I have read that Siddharta Gautama is said to have had practical experience in battle, not just combat training as traditionally passed down.

This seems very doubtful to me, so I would like to ask here whether such a thing is actually claimed in an old biography.

Thanks in advance.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Did Siddharta Gautama have battle experience?

Post by Malcolm »

Tammuz wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 5:32 pm This is not a Mahayana or Vajrayana topic, but I don't know where else to post the question to competent people.

I have read that Siddharta Gautama is said to have had practical experience in battle, not just combat training as traditionally passed down.

This seems very doubtful to me, so I would like to ask here whether such a thing is actually claimed in an old biography.

Thanks in advance.
He reputedly trained in the martial skills of his day, horsemanship, archery, swordsmanship, wrestling, etc.
Giovanni
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:07 am

Re: Did Siddharta Gautama have battle experience?

Post by Giovanni »

That would have been a normal thing for the sons of Noble families in his culture at that time. It obviously stayed with him. He would use analogies like archery in later life. And he described himself and his sangha as kshetriya…members of the warrior class. They weren’t old hippies..🙂
Last edited by Giovanni on Tue Jul 27, 2021 6:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9439
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Did Siddharta Gautama have battle experience?

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Malcolm wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 6:44 pm
Tammuz wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 5:32 pm This is not a Mahayana or Vajrayana topic, but I don't know where else to post the question to competent people.

I have read that Siddharta Gautama is said to have had practical experience in battle, not just combat training as traditionally passed down.

This seems very doubtful to me, so I would like to ask here whether such a thing is actually claimed in an old biography.

Thanks in advance.
He reputedly trained in the martial skills of his day, horsemanship, archery, swordsmanship, wrestling, etc.
… his family (clan, actually) was part of the warrior caste. So, it makes sense that he trained in fighting. Supposedly he was very good at it.

Keep in mind, just as when we refer to “Prince” Siddhartha, saying he was a warrior is merely using a label, and we fill in what that label refers to with our imagination. Being a member of a certain caste in India would both define and limit you to some extent, even back then, but could also mean practically anything within those limits. Obviously not every person born into warrior caste is going to march around with a sword all the time …or even ever hold one.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Did Siddharta Gautama have battle experience?

Post by Malcolm »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 7:25 pm
Keep in mind, just as when we refer to “Prince” Siddhartha, saying he was a warrior is merely using a label, and we fill in what that label refers to with our imagination. Being a member of a certain caste in India would both define and limit you to some extent, even back then, but could also mean practically anything within those limits. Obviously not every person born into warrior caste is going to march around with a sword all the time …or even ever hold one.
It is quite questionable whether the Buddha's tribe was actually part of the caste system. For example, his father, "the king," was an elected chief, and there was no hereditary kingship in the Buddha's tribe. So his being a "prince" is a western affectation that does not even begin to address his actual position in the Śākya tribe. The brahmins were simply not that present in Greater Maghada, and there is evidence that the brahamins to the west seriously looked down upon these primitives who buried their chiefs in burial mounds. While it is certainly improbably that kings of Tibet descended from Mountain Licchavis, what is true is that Tibetans adopted Iranian-Scythian custom of interring their btsan pos, chiefs, in burial mounds as well.
Natan
Posts: 3685
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: Did Siddharta Gautama have battle experience?

Post by Natan »

Buddha also said in sutras your caste is what you do not to whom you're born.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Did Siddharta Gautama have battle experience?

Post by Malcolm »

Crazywisdom wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 2:38 pm Buddha also said in sutras your caste is what you do not to whom you're born.
Yes, indeed he did. However, we can see in later literature a sort of brahminization of Buddhism, to the point where even creatures like nāgas are divided into four varnas, and so on, and brahmins being part of the deal in terms of royal rites in Thailand, and so on. So we tend to think of the Buddha as being a kṣatriya, when it fact it is unlikely that Buddha was part of the varna system at all, and thus such appellations are irrelevant to his actual social status. In other words, legend has it that Buddha left his royal heritage behind him. But as the chiefs of the Śākyas were elected, it is unlikely he had the obligation of being a royal heir, hence not a prince. In other words, later legends about the person of the Buddha are to him as Arthurian romances are to the original Arthur.
Natan
Posts: 3685
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: Did Siddharta Gautama have battle experience?

Post by Natan »

Malcolm wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 3:05 pm
Crazywisdom wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 2:38 pm Buddha also said in sutras your caste is what you do not to whom you're born.
Yes, indeed he did. However, we can see in later literature a sort of brahminization of Buddhism, to the point where even creatures like nāgas are divided into four varnas, and so on, and brahmins being part of the deal in terms of royal rites in Thailand, and so on. So we tend to think of the Buddha as being a kṣatriya, when it fact it is unlikely that Buddha was part of the varna system at all, and thus such appellations are irrelevant to his actual social status. In other words, legend has it that Buddha left his royal heritage behind him. But as the chiefs of the Śākyas were elected, it is unlikely he had the obligation of being a royal heir, hence not a prince. In other words, later legends about the person of the Buddha are to him as Arthurian romances are to the original Arthur.
Tantra includes a lot about castes, stuff on deities represents the four castes, etc. But keep in mind there was a proto culture shared with Iran which is very old. Zoarastrian temple fires must have ash from the hearths of four classes workers as well. The notion was diffused. The Brahmins just formalized the hell out of it. Buddha spoke about castes in sutras, obviously he knew about them, he referred to himself in terms of consistent with his status. The fact that his father was elected doesn't mean anyone could get elected. Only chiefs got elected, and his father was elected the big chief by chiefs. So it's the same thing as a Kshatriya. There were other later tribes that got assimilated into Kshatrya like Jats, based on their warlike ways. Jats are recent and some older Kshatrya look at them as like worker class. So this sort of talk is as old as India.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Did Siddharta Gautama have battle experience?

Post by Malcolm »

Crazywisdom wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 6:06 pm
Tantra includes a lot about castes, stuff on deities represents the four castes, etc. But keep in mind there was a proto culture shared with Iran which is very old. Zoarastrian temple fires must have ash from the hearths of four classes workers as well. The notion was diffused. The Brahmins just formalized the hell out of it. Buddha spoke about castes in sutras, obviously he knew about them, he referred to himself in terms of consistent with his status. The fact that his father was elected doesn't mean anyone could get elected. Only chiefs got elected, and his father was elected the big chief by chiefs. So it's the same thing as a Kshatriya. There were other later tribes that got assimilated into Kshatrya like Jats, based on their warlike ways. Jats are recent and some older Kshatrya look at them as like worker class. So this sort of talk is as old as India.
You should check out Bronkhorst's historical work.

The original system among Indo-Europeans was based on three main classes: priests, warriors, and farmers. The four class system was a later development, unique to India. Also, there was great fluidity between these three classes, meaning one could be all three. The main point is that Buddha's folks interred their important people in Kurgans. The Brahmins thought this was barbaric, and in early texts, referred to the people who lived in Magadha as demons, not even human.

The Scythians, unlike their Iranian cousins, did not do homa offerings. Also, the warrior class was considered the foremost class, with priests and farmers, second and third. We see this in the Buddha's teachings in the Pali canon as well. After the Sakas invaded India in 145 BCE, after they gained power in Gandhara, they strongly supported Buddhism, and continued to enjoy power even after they were made vassals of the Kushana Empire. But there were likely Scythians in the army of Ashoka's father, Chandragupta Maurya. One presumes they were well-acquainted with the ill-fated Śākya tribe that was decimated by Kosalians during the Buddha's lifetime.

Scholars such as Beckwith and Witzel make very convincing arguments that the Śākyas in Magadha are in fact Indo-Scythians from an earlier migration.

Highland Scots, incidentally, claim to be descendants of the Scythians.
Natan
Posts: 3685
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: Did Siddharta Gautama have battle experience?

Post by Natan »

Malcolm wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 6:46 pm
Crazywisdom wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 6:06 pm
Tantra includes a lot about castes, stuff on deities represents the four castes, etc. But keep in mind there was a proto culture shared with Iran which is very old. Zoarastrian temple fires must have ash from the hearths of four classes workers as well. The notion was diffused. The Brahmins just formalized the hell out of it. Buddha spoke about castes in sutras, obviously he knew about them, he referred to himself in terms of consistent with his status. The fact that his father was elected doesn't mean anyone could get elected. Only chiefs got elected, and his father was elected the big chief by chiefs. So it's the same thing as a Kshatriya. There were other later tribes that got assimilated into Kshatrya like Jats, based on their warlike ways. Jats are recent and some older Kshatrya look at them as like worker class. So this sort of talk is as old as India.
You should check out Bronkhorst's historical work.

The original system among Indo-Europeans was based on three main classes: priests, warriors, and farmers. The four class system was a later development, unique to India. Also, there was great fluidity between these three classes, meaning one could be all three. The main point is that Buddha's folks interred their important people in Kurgans. The Brahmins thought this was barbaric, and in early texts, referred to the people who lived in Magadha as demons, not even human.

The Scythians, unlike their Iranian cousins, did not do homa offerings. Also, the warrior class was considered the foremost class, with priests and farmers, second and third. We see this in the Buddha's teachings in the Pali canon as well. After the Sakas invaded India in 145 BCE, after they gained power in Gandhara, they strongly supported Buddhism, and continued to enjoy power even after they were made vassals of the Kushana Empire. But there were likely Scythians in the army of Ashoka's father, Chandragupta Maurya. One presumes they were well-acquainted with the ill-fated Śākya tribe that was decimated by Kosalians during the Buddha's lifetime.

Scholars such as Beckwith and Witzel make very convincing arguments that the Śākyas in Magadha are in fact Indo-Scythians from an earlier migration.

Highland Scots, incidentally, claim to be descendants of the Scythians.
We all descend from a single woman in Africa. 200,000,000 descend from Genghis Khan. You should read the genetic history of India. There were constant waves of Migrations. Every Indian is mixed with so many groups, including Scythians and Moguls and you name it. But it's a fact that even today caste and identity are very contentious. Different groups view caste very differently from other groups. In Punjab also Kshatriya are de facto viewed as number 1. Ethnic groups from one side see the others as animals, or subhumans. Bias and hate is the norm since India began. Buddha knew what caste was. He knew what Brahmins were. He saw himself as Kshatriya, because he said so in sutras. He tried to turn the notion into a spiritual value. The fact that some group from some region thought Buddhas group were demons, because of their different customs just confirms this. I'm sure the feeling was mutual. There were competing notions of caste and who got to be number 1, and still is.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Did Siddharta Gautama have battle experience?

Post by Malcolm »

Crazywisdom wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 9:18 pm
Buddha knew what caste was. He knew what Brahmins were. He saw himself as Kshatriya, because he said so in sutras.
That's not really very clear anymore. He didn't say anything in any sūtras at all.

We have, at best, oral records committed to writing hundreds of years after the Buddha, during which time all of India had undergone centuries of cultural upheaval and transformation because of the fall of the Achaemenid Empire on its borders, the arrival of the Greeks, writing, etc.

Do these records, whether Mahāyāna or śrāvaka convey much of the essence of what the Buddha must have taught, certainly.
He tried to turn the notion into a spiritual value. The fact that some group from some region thought Buddhas group were demons, because of their different customs just confirms this. I'm sure the feeling was mutual. There were competing notions of caste and who got to be number 1, and still is.
Very worth reading:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... Brahmanism


Also there is this:
The most uncertain of the categories we discussed in the Suttas is the fourfold vaṇṇa (Skt varṇa) system. At least the broad application of the label at the Buddha’s time and location is doubtful. The four classes (khattiya, brāhmaṇa, vessa, sudda) do appear frequently in the Suttas without a label, yet we cannot escape the impression that what we find in the Suttas is a formula from a later time which was then inserted into the Suttas.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _and_Caste
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 4604
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Did Siddharta Gautama have battle experience?

Post by Aemilius »

The estates of the realm, or three estates, were the broad orders of social hierarchy used in Europe from the Middle Ages to early modern Europe. Different systems for dividing society members into estates developed and evolved over time.

The best known system is the French Ancien Régime (Old Regime), a three-estate system used until the French Revolution (1789–1799). The monarchy included the king and the queen, while the system was made up of clergy (the First Estate), nobles (Second Estate), peasants and bourgeoisie (Third Estate). In some regions, notably Scandinavia and Russia, burghers (the urban merchant class) and rural commoners were split into separate estates, creating a four-estate system with rural commoners ranking the lowest as the Fourth Estate. Furthermore, the non-landowning poor could be left outside the estates, leaving them without political rights. In England, a two-estate system evolved that combined nobility and clergy into one lordly estate with "commons" as the second estate. This system produced the two houses of parliament, the House of Commons and the House of Lords. In southern Germany, a three-estate system of nobility (princes and high clergy), knights, and burghers was used. In Scotland, the Three Estates were the Clergy (First Estate), Nobility (Second Estate), and Shire Commissioners, or "burghers" (Third Estate), representing the bourgeois, middle class, and lower class. The Estates made up a Scottish Parliament.


Riksdag of the Estates (formally Swedish: Riksens ständer; informally Swedish: Ståndsriksdagen) was the name used for the Estates of Sweden when they were assembled. Until its dissolution in 1866, the institution was the highest authority in Sweden next to the King. It was a Diet made up of the Four Estates, which historically were the lines of division in Swedish society:
Nobility
Clergy
Burghers
Farmers

In ancient Rome, the plebeians (also called plebs) were the general body of free Roman citizens who were not patricians, as determined by the census, or in other words "commoners". The status, of being both plebeian or patrician, was hereditary.

The patricians (from Latin: patricius) were originally a group of ruling class families in ancient Rome. The distinction was highly significant in the Roman Kingdom, and the early Republic, but its relevance waned after the Conflict of the Orders (494 BC to 287 BC). By the time of the late Republic and Empire, membership in the patriciate was of only nominal significance.

The social structure of Ancient Rome revolved around the distinction between the patricians and the plebeians. The status of patricians gave them more political power than the plebeians. The relationship between the patricians and the plebeians eventually caused the Conflict of the Orders. This time period resulted in changing the social structure of Ancient Rome.

After the Western Empire fell, the term "patrician" continued as a high honorary title in the Byzantine Empire. In the Holy Roman Empire and in many medieval Italian republics, medieval patrician classes were once again formally defined groups of leading Grand Burgher families, especially in Venice and Genoa. Subsequently "patrician" became a vague term used to refer to aristocrats and the higher bourgeoisie in many countries.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
Natan
Posts: 3685
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: Did Siddharta Gautama have battle experience?

Post by Natan »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 9:59 pm
Crazywisdom wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 9:18 pm
Buddha knew what caste was. He knew what Brahmins were. He saw himself as Kshatriya, because he said so in sutras.
That's not really very clear anymore. He didn't say anything in any sūtras at all.

We have, at best, oral records committed to writing hundreds of years after the Buddha, during which time all of India had undergone centuries of cultural upheaval and transformation because of the fall of the Achaemenid Empire on its borders, the arrival of the Greeks, writing, etc.

Do these records, whether Mahāyāna or śrāvaka convey much of the essence of what the Buddha must have taught, certainly.
He tried to turn the notion into a spiritual value. The fact that some group from some region thought Buddhas group were demons, because of their different customs just confirms this. I'm sure the feeling was mutual. There were competing notions of caste and who got to be number 1, and still is.
Very worth reading:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... Brahmanism


Also there is this:
The most uncertain of the categories we discussed in the Suttas is the fourfold vaṇṇa (Skt varṇa) system. At least the broad application of the label at the Buddha’s time and location is doubtful. The four classes (khattiya, brāhmaṇa, vessa, sudda) do appear frequently in the Suttas without a label, yet we cannot escape the impression that what we find in the Suttas is a formula from a later time which was then inserted into the Suttas.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _and_Caste
The guy agrees with me Buddha would have known about caste, but didn't Revere it. Brahmins were in the area, just not esteemed. It doesn't mean the Magadha folks weren't coopting it. The sparse textual evidence he cites hardly accounts for Indian cultural habits.

Well that's a nice theory. But until there's proof, which there can never be, we can have our doubts, but until then, I would take the suttas at face value. There's plenty reason to believe this idea of fixed social strata was ubiquitous in the region of central and south Asia. Also Buddha remarks on the invalidity of caste based on birth and that it is based on action. Would this also be a later addition? And once we do down this road of doubt about nothing being the words of Buddha, then all of Buddhadharma is a pack of lies. It would be attributed to cabals of anonymous men writing under Buddha as a nom de plum. The efficacy of the dharma comes down to it being like an experimental science. That would be an interesting and novel idea. It seems that would make the point of empowerment and lineage questionable at best. Maybe it wouldn't. I don't know. Maybe you should write a book about it.
Last edited by Natan on Fri Jul 30, 2021 1:08 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: Fri Jul 30, 2021 12:49 pm It would be attributed to cabals of anonymous men writing under Buddha as a nom de plum.
The Mahabharata, the Puranas, etc., were composed by anonymous men. Why should Mahayana Sutras and tantras be any different? Especially considering that the tantras did not begin to be written down until 6th century at the earliest.

There was no writing in India, as far as we know, prior to the Mauryan Empire.

Speaking of Indian cultural habits, putting words in the mouths of historical, legendary, and mythical figures seems to be very much their habit. Somewhat like the way we write historical dramas with dialogue that John Adams, for example, never spoke in actuality.
Natan
Posts: 3685
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: Did Siddharta Gautama have battle experience?

Post by Natan »

Malcolm wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 1:47 pm
Crazywisdom wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 12:49 pm It would be attributed to cabals of anonymous men writing under Buddha as a nom de plum.
The Mahabharata, the Puranas, etc., were composed by anonymous men. Why should Mahayana Sutras and tantras be any different? Especially considering that the tantras did not begin to be written down until 6th century at the earliest.

There was no writing in India, as far as we know, prior to the Mauryan Empire.

Speaking of Indian cultural habits, putting words in the mouths of historical, legendary, and mythical figures seems to be very much their habit. Somewhat like the way we write historical dramas with dialogue that John Adams, for example, never spoke in actuality.
I his book about what Buddha taught he seems to be saying all we can know is he taught FNT, N8P, middle way as not esceticism or knowledge of a self, jhanas and wisdom. And then basically this was his way of saying go work on these and then you get it, liberation.

So the rest of all of Buddhadharma is guys writing copious notes trying to get it.

The arguments the guy makes in his earlier book would basically put most of earlier sects, all of Mahayana and Vajrayana in the category of stuff lifted from other traditions and/made up by Buddhists to try and make things fit. Like Shabkar wrote, Some say Self, Dharmakaya, Rigpa, etc., It's all the same by different names. I think the author you cited would argue this is definitely not what Buddha taught or meant to teach...
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 3:32 pm
The arguments the guy makes in his earlier book would basically put most of earlier sects, all of Mahayana and Vajrayana in the category of stuff lifted from other traditions and/made up by Buddhists to try and make things fit. Like Shabkar wrote, Some say Self, Dharmakaya, Rigpa, etc., It's all the same by different names. I think the author you cited would argue this is definitely not what Buddha taught or meant to teach...
So, do you literally believe the events of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra happened? Do you believe the Buddha flew through the air to Śṛī Lanka to have a buddy to buddy conversation with rakṣasa king, Ravana, as the Lankāvatāra portrays? Do you literally believe thousands of monks and bodhisattvas can fit on Rajagriha?

More to the point, does it actually matter if these things happened in history, or is the content and message of these texts more important?

If you decided that these events did not happen in history, that they were a kind of religious fictional narrative, would you lose confidence in Mahāyāna teachings? And if you did lose confidence in Mahāyāna teachings, wouldn't that mean the provenance of a teaching is more important to you than its doctrine?

When it comes to history, I read historians; when it comes to tenets, I read panditas; when it comes to the meaning of sūtras, I read the charioteers, Nāgārjuna, and the rest; when it comes to Vajrayāna, I read the mahāsiddhas, like Virupa, Indrabhuti, etc. I am perfectly comfortable adapting my perspective based on what is useful in that moment. Here, in the academic forum, what is useful is history and modern scholarship.
Natan
Posts: 3685
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: Did Siddharta Gautama have battle experience?

Post by Natan »

Malcolm wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:13 pm
Crazywisdom wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 3:32 pm
The arguments the guy makes in his earlier book would basically put most of earlier sects, all of Mahayana and Vajrayana in the category of stuff lifted from other traditions and/made up by Buddhists to try and make things fit. Like Shabkar wrote, Some say Self, Dharmakaya, Rigpa, etc., It's all the same by different names. I think the author you cited would argue this is definitely not what Buddha taught or meant to teach...
So, do you literally believe the events of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra happened? Do you believe the Buddha flew through the air to Śṛī Lanka to have a buddy to buddy conversation with rakṣasa king, Ravana, as the Lankāvatāra portrays? Do you literally believe thousands of monks and bodhisattvas can fit on Rajagriha?

More to the point, does it actually matter if these things happened in history, or is the content and message of these texts more important?

If you decided that these events did not happen in history, that they were a kind of religious fictional narrative, would you lose confidence in Mahāyāna teachings? And if you did lose confidence in Mahāyāna teachings, wouldn't that mean the provenance of a teaching is more important to you than its doctrine?

When it comes to history, I read historians; when it comes to tenets, I read panditas; when it comes to the meaning of sūtras, I read the charioteers, Nāgārjuna, and the rest; when it comes to Vajrayāna, I read the mahāsiddhas, like Virupa, Indrabhuti, etc. I am perfectly comfortable adapting my perspective based on what is useful in that moment. Here, in the academic forum, what is useful is history and modern scholarship.
Credibility is important. Liars lie for a motive. Either the miraculous accounts happened or they didn't. If they didn't, probably the text is irrelevant at best.

My lama swore Pachung could fly. I saw some pretty miraculous stuff around those guys. One must have an open mind. Not everything is explained.

It was interesting to read the previous book Chapter 2 of Bronkworst on what Buddha taught. It was very sparse. The later fabrications fill warehouses of pages.

He also makes some pretty big leaps of logic, like if something wasn't meantioned it means he didn't know about it. I'd have to look again, but he uses this tactic to frame his main arguments often,: see his logic on why 12 links was probably a later addition. He drops many many unsupported assumptions to prove his points. Although he makes some good ones, too. The passages he selected as probably emblemtic of Buddha's intent, tone, modus operandi, rings true. They have a raw and natural feel of someone trying to get his point across, rather than someone trying to organize ideas for memorization,.or to wax philosophical to split hairs.

What is clear is Buddha was not making doctrinal points, he was making functional ones. He was hacking. Give up ideas, opinions, me and mine, here's how, do this, meditate, understand suffering, etc. It appears the later stuff is like guys floundering to keep it together. I wonder if they had better historical tools if much of that would have come about.

Similarly, do you really believe there is such a thing as 3 incalculable kalpas? Do you really believe your blood of past lives can fill the universe? Do you really believe the Buddha taught all these different paths, like bhumis and 5 paths? Is it at all necessary to know any abidharma? Or is it all superfluous?

Vajrayana somehow has a way to make meditation easier. It's like a car. It's got handles and buttons. And then there's the bonus of magical wizardry. From his book on Brahmans, it's hard not to notice that's what Brahmans are about. A Vajrayana sadhana is just like a Vedic ritual from start to finish. Ommm... Bali, Fire... throw offerings...... In case anyone wonders, I think even if the Buddha's intented cessation dhyana is what what can do the mantras and siddhis are even more strong. So why not use them?

He mentions very succinctly Nagarjuna's point that reality is just words is a fallacy. And Mahayana is all about it, and hence Vajrayana's magical formulae, are sort of based on a fallacy.

At the same time, Buddha just wanted guys to see how suffering comes and goes. Bronkworst describes Dharmakaya as a guy who got the teaching.

That simplicity is very convincing. I don't care about what's true or false too much, like in nature of reality. I care about what works. I know for sure no one needs to read a single Shastra to achieve enlightenment.
Last edited by Natan on Fri Jul 30, 2021 9:11 pm, 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: Fri Jul 30, 2021 9:03 pm
Credibility is important. Liars lie for a motive. Either the miraculous accounts happened or they didn't. If they didn't, probably the text is irrelevant at best.
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.
My lama swore Pachung could fly. I saw some pretty miraculous stuff around those guys. One must have an open mind. Not everything is explained.
On the contrary, everything is explained, for examples, things like the ṛddhipatis, etc.
He also makes some pretty big leaps of logic, like if something wasn't meantioned it means he didn't know about it. I'd have to look again, but he uses this tactic to frame his main arguments often,: see his logic on why 12 links was probably a later addition.
This is because there are several formulations of the nidanas, and they are not consistently presented.

He drops many many unsupported assumptions to prove his points. Although he makes some good ones, too. The passages he selected as probably emblemtic of Buddha's intent, tone, modus operandi, rings true. They have a raw and natural feel of someone trying to get his point across, rather than someone trying to organize ideas for memorization,.or to wax philosophical to split hairs.
The Buddha was interested in philosophy only in so far as it reduced people's concepts.


Similarly, do you really believe there is such a thing as 3 incalculable kalpas? Do you really believe your blood of past lives can fill the universe? Do you really believe the Buddha taught all these different paths, like bhumis and 5 paths? Is it at all necessary to know any abidharma? Or is it all superfluous?
I personally accept rebirth and think that Buddhadharma is pointless and makes no sense without accepting both rebirth and karma.

Whether the person we call "Gautama Buddha" actually taught all of these texts we now have in person or not is not important to me. What matters to me is what these texts say, and there is a remarkably consistent thread running through all of them.

The Abhidharma is the original attempt to systematize the disordered nature of the Buddha's oral teachings. The Theravadins wrapped it up in a myth of Buddha ascending to the heavens to teach the devas. The Sarvastivadins were more honest, and asserted they were the summaries of the Dharma by senior arhats.
Vajrayana somehow has a way to make meditation easier. It's like a car. It's got handles and buttons. And then there's the bonus of magical wizardry.
This is because Vajrayāna takes into account the anatomy of the human body as a vehicle for liberation and yogic experience, something alluded to in the śrāvaka and Mahāyāna canon, but not made explicit.
From his book on Brahmans, it's hard not to notice that's what Brahmans are about. He mentions very succinctly Nagarjuna's point that reality is just words is a fallacy. And Mahayana is all about it, and hence Vajrayana's magical formulae, or sort of based on a fallacy.
Vajrayāna invokes some very ancient pre-Buddhist concepts about reality and language, but repurposes them for its own ends.
That simplicity is very convincing.
Yes.
Natan
Posts: 3685
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: Did Siddharta Gautama have battle experience?

Post by Natan »

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?
On the contrary, everything is explained, for examples, things like the ṛddhipatis, etc.
I meant with objective reasoning, you know, like the kind you are advocating in this thread. I know how siddhis are taught. It's woo woo.

This is because there are several formulations of the nidanas, and they are not consistently presented.
He also uses the Pillars of Ashok as proof there were no Brahmins in Indo Greek region. That's like saying we can prove America is free from the Statue of Liberty.


The Buddha was interested in philosophy only in so far as it reduced people's concepts.
Prove it. According to Bronkworst Buddha just said don't get into ideas.

I personally accept rebirth and think that Buddhadharma is pointless and makes no sense without accepting both rebirth and karma.
Me too. But blood fills the Universe? Bones like a Galaxy?
Whether the person we call "Gautama Buddha" actually taught all of these texts we now have in person or not is not important to me. What matters to me is what these texts say, and there is a remarkably consistent thread running through all of them.
I don't think it is consistent. Bronkworst proves that. Very inconsistent. The point of the chapter is one can induce what is words of Buddha by what is in suttas and not in other traditions, what is in suttas and consistent with other traditions, what is in suttas not contradicted by suttas, not in other traditions but inconsistent in format.

The Sarvastivadins were more honest, and asserted they were the summaries of the Dharma by senior arhats.


I'm glad someone was honest
This is because Vajrayāna takes into account the anatomy of the human body as a vehicle for liberation and yogic experience, something alluded to in the śrāvaka and Mahāyāna canon, but not made explicit.
I know. Why the Vedic ritual imitation, if we are to believe Buddha was isolated from that? You know the sarma teach the four division of tantra as related with castes, right?

Vajrayāna invokes some very ancient pre-Buddhist concepts about reality and language, but repurposes them for its own ends.
Pre Buddhist you mean Vedic? So by the logic of this thread Buddha was chief who trained with swords and stuff, had no idea about Brahmanism, because it didn't even exist, was isolated from Vedic rituals and this Vajrayana is like a what? Also ran? An invention of Loopa and Voopa?
Last edited by Natan on Fri Jul 30, 2021 10:23 pm, edited 5 times in total.
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 4604
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Did Siddharta Gautama have battle experience?

Post by Aemilius »

Tammuz wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 5:32 pm This is not a Mahayana or Vajrayana topic, but I don't know where else to post the question to competent people.

I have read that Siddharta Gautama is said to have had practical experience in battle, not just combat training as traditionally passed down.

This seems very doubtful to me, so I would like to ask here whether such a thing is actually claimed in an old biography.

Thanks in advance.
There is such a work, Lalitavistara sutra, the Voice of the Buddha, Volume I, Chapter 12, Skill in Worldly Arts. There it says for example:
" In all the worldly arts, the Bodhisattva (prince Siddhartha) surpassed both gods and men, distinguishing himself as superior: in jumping, in the knowledge of writing, astrology, mathematics, and arithmetic; in wrestling, archery, running, swimming, and riding elephants mounted on the neck; in riding horseback, chariot driving, and the use of the bow; in firmness, strength and courage, in feats of strength, in use of the hook and lasso, and in the action of throwing forward, backward and taking away; in the tying of the wrists, the tying of the feet, tying of the locks of hair; in the actions of cutting, separating, penetrating, and grinding; in cutting apart, in hitting the right place, hitting exactly the right place, in striking with a sound; in striking with heavy blows; in the game of dice; in poetry, grammar, and composition of books; in painting, sculpture, drama, and the science of tending the fire; in the art of playing the vina; in instrumental music, dance, and song; in reading , reciting and joking; in sports, dancing, decorating the body, and mime;
and so on..."

Image
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
Post Reply

Return to “Academic Discussion”