How important is The Buddha to Buddhism?

[Ceisiwr]

Actually they wouldn't EXIST without these people.

Wouldnt special relativity "exist" without Einstein


Just like there is Dhamma without a Buddha

[BlackBird]

Just like there is Dhamma without a Buddha

But it takes a Buddha to (re)discover it. So without the Buddha, there can be no Sasana, no teaching, and no enlightenment save for a handful of private Buddhas.

[Wizard in the Forest]

Actually they wouldn't EXIST without these people.

Wouldnt special relativity "exist" without Einstein?


Just like there is Dhamma without a Buddha

Not really, let's put it this way. Do you think that the disembodied voice of Einstein existed having no matter, no energy, existed preceding the beginning of the Earth, before the beginning of the sun and the stars were formed, before the primal generation of anything, and these laws were sitting there in the middle of nowhere billions of years ago before he was even born and that magically he discovered those words? They were always there, even when they applied to nothing? Gradually the world came into being and then those words and axioms applied to it? That in fact, those words themselves applied to it? Those words themselves are what formed the world? NONSENSE. Logic exists in the mind, numbers exist in the mind, words exist in the mind, and our minds only exist as a result of ignorance, conditioned by ignorance. Without Buddha having unconditioned this ignorance then he too was ignorant. Without the Buddha there is no Dharma at all, in the same way if Einstein didn't exist, special relativity wouldn't exist either.

[Ceisiwr]

Without the Buddha there is no Dharma at all, in the same way if Einstein didn't exist, special relativity wouldn't exist either.

The Dhamma, or way it is, exists. The Buddha was one who awakened to it, he didnt create it


The Buddha taught that these truths exist even if there is no one who knows them


Special relativity describes a process of nature (from what I understand). Einstein didnt create "it", he just worked it out



Likewise gravity exists even if there is no one living to observe and work it out

[Ceisiwr]

But it takes a Buddha to (re)discover it. So without the Buddha, there can be no Sasana, no teaching, and no enlightenment save for a handful of private Buddhas.

Well for me it doesnt matter if it is one person or several, the teachings work thats all that matters


Personally I would say that there was one man who formulated what we have, however if it was somehow proved that this wasnt the case it wouldnt change my practice at all

[Wizard in the Forest]

The Dhamma, or way it is, exists. The Buddha was one who awakened to it, he didnt create it

So how does it "exist"? It has no form, no perception, no sensation, it has no consciousness, it has no emotion. It has all marks of non-existence. If you want to say "the Dharma exists without self" you're admitting that the Dharma's "existence" depends on someone's ability to discover it. It depends on A Buddha. Such a condition is inescapable.

The Buddha taught that these truths exist even if there is no one who knows them

And how then do they exist, if no one knows them?

Special relativity describes a process of nature (from what I understand). Einstein didnt create "it", he just worked it out

Worked it out? Not at all, he created it to describe what he observed.

Likewise gravity exists even if there is no one living to observe and work it out

We don't know that. We don't even know what gravity is! Physicists have been baffled by gravity so that they had to fall onto different theories about it. Special Relativity, Newtonian Physics, General Relativity, Quantum loop, Quantum Gravity, etc. We don't know what gravity is!

[Individual]

Gautama did not teach either Buddha or Buddhism. Gautama taught bodhi.

Buddha is a form of atta (self) and Buddhism is papanca (conceptual proliferation). Words like Buddha and Buddhism are conventional expressions. In reality, there are no Buddhas because there is no self, and Buddhism itself is a hindrance, because it arises from sankharas and all sankharas are impermanent.

[tiltbillings]

Gautama did not teach either Buddha or Buddhism. Gautama taught bodhi.

Buddha is a form of atta (self) and Buddhism is papanca (conceptual proliferation). Words like Buddha and Buddhism are conventional expressions. In reality, there are no Buddhas because there is no self, and Buddhism itself is a hindrance, because it arises from sankharas and all sankharas are impermanent.

Said he, spouting confused conceptual poliferation.

[KonstantKarma]

Is the Buddha required, or is the Dhamma and Sangha sufficient?

While I take refuge in all three jewels, I think for me the Dhamma is of primary significance when it comes to daily practice. But the Dhamma must have come from somewhere, and my assumption is that it was the historical Buddha.

Spiny

People get very attached to the window that shows the view outside, when in reality, it's the view outside that matters. Any window will do.

[Aloka]

Gautama did not teach either Buddha or Buddhism. Gautama taught bodhi.

Buddha is a form of atta (self) and Buddhism is papanca (conceptual proliferation). Words like Buddha and Buddhism are conventional expressions. In reality, there are no Buddhas because there is no self, and Buddhism itself is a hindrance, because it arises from sankharas and all sankharas are impermanent.

Said he, spouting confused conceptual poliferation.

I must confess I'm finding this thread (and its title) pretty confusing in general!

[tiltbillings]

Gautama did not teach either Buddha or Buddhism. Gautama taught bodhi.

Buddha is a form of atta (self) and Buddhism is papanca (conceptual proliferation). Words like Buddha and Buddhism are conventional expressions. In reality, there are no Buddhas because there is no self, and Buddhism itself is a hindrance, because it arises from sankharas and all sankharas are impermanent.

Said he, spouting confused conceptual poliferation.

I must confess I'm finding this thread (and its title) pretty confusing in general!

Doesn't help when we get this bloated supposedly profound Dhamma speak.

[Anicca]

How important is The Buddha to Buddhism?

He is the namesake - I'd say pretty important.

To what degree is belief in the historical existence of The Buddha necessary?

To quote the Buddha regarding the existence (historical or otherwise) of the Buddha:

... you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality ...

SN 22.86 Anuradha Sutta:

Utilising the teachings for an understanding, a skillful practice and an application in daily life (each moment if you will) is the only requirement for me.

metta

[KonstantKarma]

Thanks Anicca - I do have a hard time seeing the Buddha standing on a platform shouting "Me! Me! Look at me! Adore me! Me me me!"

As long as there are buddhas and buddhists and the like who achieve results from the dhamma the exact identity of the teacher of the teachings is not all that necessary. Interesting and helpful of course but it's like a recipe... I don't know who figured out mixing flour with eggs and milk could make a cake - no idea whatsoever! - but I reap the benefits of good cake.

[BlackBird]

Gautama did not teach either Buddha or Buddhism. Gautama taught bodhi.

Buddha is a form of atta (self) and Buddhism is papanca (conceptual proliferation). Words like Buddha and Buddhism are conventional expressions. In reality, there are no Buddhas because there is no self, and Buddhism itself is a hindrance, because it arises from sankharas and all sankharas are impermanent.

Said he, spouting confused conceptual poliferation.

Goodness it makes for good patience training.

[Wizard in the Forest]

The point is that without the Buddha's teachings the "Dharma" as in Buddha's teachings are gone from this world, and will have to be rediscovered by another Buddha, ad infinitum. If we don't have a Buddha we'll have to either discover the path by ourselves with no existing example and die before being able to teach it(Pratyekabuddha), or we would be able to teach it (Samyaksambuddha). We have the Dharma available, and so we can become disciples of the Buddha, and become Arahant. For that we are lucky.