How important is The Buddha to Buddhism?

[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.

[KonstantKarma]

I think the question raised here in the OP is how much do we need to cling to the notion of the historical Buddha to appreciate the path? How much is it okay to revere him as the teacher and when do we reach the point that we have to let the poor dead man rest?

[Wizard in the Forest]

I think the question raised here in the OP is how much do we need to cling to the notion of the historical Buddha to appreciate the path? How much is it okay to revere him as the teacher and when do we reach the point that we have to let the poor dead man rest?

He is dead. There is nothing to cling to. That doesn't mean keeping the teachings alive is keeping him alive. You think that by revering the teacher after his death somehow rouses him?

That's silly. We honor him because he gave us the teachings and we are his disciples.

[BlackBird]

however if it was somehow proved that this wasnt the case it wouldnt change my practice at all

The thing is, if several people got together and ascribed the Dhamma to one person, invented this character called the Buddha, then they told a pretty big lie. If a practice founded upon truth is contradicted by it's inception then it doesn't give it much credibility, the Buddha has explicitly stated that the Dhamma is free of patchwork, i.e. it doesn't contradict itself [1]. According to the Buddha, an Arahant is incapable of distorting the truth[2], as such, if several people did discover the Dhamma and ascribe it to one person, then they couldn't have been enlightened in the sense that is described by the Buddha.

Therefore either:
A) The Buddha was a real, fully enlightened being who discovered the truth in all things.
B) A bunch of guys made the whole thing up and there is no such thing as the awakening that is presented to us in the Suttas.

It might be said that it doesn't matter because the results that one experiences in the here are benefit enough to warrant the effort of practice, but tell me - Does one undertake a long drive on the motorway simply for the pleasure of the drive?

[KonstantKarma]

I think the question raised here in the OP is how much do we need to cling to the notion of the historical Buddha to appreciate the path? How much is it okay to revere him as the teacher and when do we reach the point that we have to let the poor dead man rest?

He is dead. There is nothing to cling to. That doesn't mean keeping the teachings alive is keeping him alive. You think that by revering the teacher after his death somehow rouses him?

That's silly. We honor him because he gave us the teachings and we are his disciples.

Honoring is fine. It's needing him to exist that's potentially crossing the line.

I personally believe the historical buddha existed and assume give-or-take his teachings were basically preserved. However, if scientific undeniable proof came out to the world that there was no Siddhartha Gautama - ever - and what is known as the suttas were written by a cluster of spiritual seekers that invented Buddha as a symbolic spokesperson, like other mythology, how would people feel?

[mikenz66]

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

To me, extremely important to having faith, and taking refuge, in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha.

If the awakened Buddha and Aryian Sangha is just a story, the whole edifice would be suspect, as has already been pointed out.


Mike

[KonstantKarma]

however if it was somehow proved that this wasnt the case it wouldnt change my practice at all

The thing is, if several people got together and ascribed the Dhamma to one person, invented this character called the Buddha, then they told a pretty big lie. If a practice founded upon truth is contradicted by it's inception then it doesn't give it much credibility, the Buddha has explicitly stated that the Dhamma is free of patchwork, i.e. it doesn't contradict itself [1]. According to the Buddha, an Arahant is incapable of distorting the truth[2], as such, if several people did discover the Dhamma and ascribe it to one person, then they couldn't have been enlightened in the sense that is described by the Buddha.

Therefore either:
A) The Buddha was a real, fully enlightened being who discovered the truth in all things.
B) A bunch of guys made the whole thing up and there is no such thing as the awakening that is presented to us in the Suttas.

It might be said that it doesn't matter because the results that one experiences in the here are benefit enough to warrant the effort of practice, but tell me - Does one undertake a long drive on the motorway simply for the pleasure of the drive?

Ahh, we crossposted, and I missed your post until now.

[alan]

The question isn't phrased correctly. Or maybe you don't get a very basic point:
Without a belief in the Buddha's awakening there would be no motivation to practice, and no reason to study.

If a conglomeration of teachings were represented to us as Buddhism, then we'd have no way of disproving wrong ideas, and low-level teachings aimed at the masses would proliferate.
Oh, wait...

[Viscid]

The question isn't phrased correctly.
Without a belief in the Buddha's awakening their would be no motivation to practice.

You can't be motivated by suffering, and seeking its end?

[alan]

If I'm not convinced the Doctor's medicine will work, why take it?

[Viscid]

If I'm not convinced the Doctor's medicine will work, why take it?

I need no faith in the Doctor to know that the Valium he prescribes will reduce my anxiety. The Doctor can be a dimwit, I have faith in the Valium.