Missing the Point of the Many Masks [was: dvija varNa]

[Ven. Tantra]

Sri Vidyasankar wrote:
<<The same arguments could be extended to any supposedly historical figure
from India, couldn't they? Paucity of concrete evidence is the rule rather
than the exception.>>
=>These arguments *must* be extended to every ancient and medieval figure.
But I was mainly addressing the literalist camp. However, any supposedly
historical figure supported solely by literary evidence, become by default
a purely literary figure. When there exists not a thread of firsthand
historical evidence in support of a presumed historical figure, that
figure can only be considered legendary, if not epical or mythical. This
is no sophisticated reasoning.

<<Perhaps one needs to inject a more critical attitude towards what is
usually assumed about "the Buddha", but this need not result in an
outright skepticism or even denial of the notion that a personality called
Siddhartha/Gotama lived ca. 5th century BCE.>>
=>The problem is this: as soon as we begin speaking in terms of "The
Buddha," the backdrop shifts to that of a church and we're immediately
obliged to offer incense and bend the knee. And this is how Buddhism is
taught in the colleges, as if one were attending a Buddhist formation
course. But be forewarned, The Historical Buddha will increasingly become
a proverbial elephant standing in the middle of the cocktail party.

<<One can be very comfortable with the notion that he was only one among
many "buddhas">>
=>This is what I believe could be called "the puranic interpretation of
the Buddha." But I'm not sure. Do you mean "many buddhas" in the legendary
sense that the early Buddhist friars did not claim to promulgate any "new"
teaching, but a teaching that had only been lost and rediscovered many
times before? A related legend is that Gotama was actually only one of a
long series of avatara buddhas who came down at intervals to teach the
same doctrine, but in a new idiom. There are twenty-four such buddhas with
different names all of whom appeared before Gotama. Yet, you may also mean
by "buddha" a trans-traditional paranormal being synonymous to the
jivan-mukta or mahasiddha, a nirvan-ized or "liberated" person. And yes,
for many this type of conception is far more comfortable, say, than the
core Pali image of an ultimate, unsurpassable, "one and only Buddha" that
no other paranormal being in the ascetic history of the universe can touch
- a divine teacher of men and gods, and before whom none but the naive
would refuse to bend the knee. So yes, the notion of "one among many
buddhas" it is certainly more comfortable, more "agreeable." But I still
feel it's wrong. It is common for spiritual seekers to go through a phase
where they want to pin their highest ideals on the irreducible historical
figure imagined to exist amid the compilation of nameless thinkers and
Buddha myths. This approach is also "comforting" because it allows one to
carefully form in ones mind an ideal, politically correct father-figure
god with the option of changing it as time goes by. Just look at the
myriad Buddha images existing throughout the cultures of the world. And
it's true, one really does possess abundant freedom to pick and choose
from the broad availability amalgamated literary sources; from the
constricted figures coming through the sutta artifacts, to the other
clearly diverse characterizations evident, say, with yogi Angirasa, our
"kundalini Buddha," as found in the early episodes of the Vinaya text.
There are other more marginal and ill-assorted materials, as well, like
Suttanipada, Dammapada, and Jataka texts; and then of course we have the
whole Mahayanic dispensation, which greatly elaborates the notion of
perennial and celestial Buddhas. Sooner or later one is bound to sober up.
-- Oh dear. Running long? VT.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices! http://auctions.yahoo.com/