Anālayo on 32 marks
- salayatananirodha
- Posts: 1479
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:34 am
- Contact:
Anālayo on 32 marks
I’m looking for anālayo’s writing on the 32 marks pls link
I host a sutta discussion via Zoom Sundays at 11AM Chicago time — message me if you are interested
Re: Anālayo on 32 marks
Buddhapada and the Bodhisattva Path, (Hamburg Buddhist Studies 8), Bochum: Projektverlag, 2017
PDF: https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg ... hapada.pdf
PDF: https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg ... hapada.pdf
Re: Anālayo on 32 marks
What do people here think about the idea that the major and minor marks could just be a cultural thing rather than absolute truths about the appearances of Buddhas and Wheel Turning Monarchs? I read that because physical ideals have changed, a person with all the major and minor marks would seem more like a freak of nature than an ideal now. It has been a few years since I read this, unfortunately, so I can't say who wrote that. But I have had my own concerns about these marks ever since I first encountered the list.
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17186
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: Anālayo on 32 marks
Yes.What do people here think about the idea that the major and minor marks could just be a cultural thing rather than absolute truths about the appearances of Buddhas and Wheel Turning Monarchs?
It is very clear from the Tipiñaka that the Buddha's physical appearance was normal in every way. When King Ajàtasattu went to meet the Buddha, he was unable to distinguish him from the surrounding monks (D.I,50). If the Buddha had any of the 32 Signs, the king would have recognized him immediately. Pukkasàti sat talking to the Buddha for hours before realizing who he was (M.III,238). If the Buddha had any of the Signs, the young man would have immediately noticed it and known that he was someone unusual. When Upaka encountered the Buddha walking along the road to Gaya, the thing that caught his attention was not his unusual body but his `clear faculties and radiant complexion' (M.I,170).
https://www.buddhisma2z.com/content.php?id=377
Re: Anālayo on 32 marks
May be a Guesswork. Kings might not be Brahmins who learned "32 parts" from Veda like Kondanna Brahmin.It is very clear from the Tipiñaka that the Buddha's physical appearance was normal in every way. When King Ajàtasattu went to meet the Buddha, he was unable to distinguish him from the surrounding monks (D.I,50). If the Buddha had any of the 32 Signs, the king would have recognized him immediately. Pukkasàti sat talking to the Buddha for hours before realizing who he was (M.III,238). If the Buddha had any of the Signs, the young man would have immediately noticed it and known that he was someone unusual. When Upaka encountered the Buddha walking along the road to Gaya, the thing that caught his attention was not his unusual body but his `clear faculties and radiant complexion' (M.I,170).
There are no enough evidences to conclude that the Buddha was just like someone else.
- salayatananirodha
- Posts: 1479
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:34 am
- Contact:
Re: Anālayo on 32 marks
I’m apparently in a minority, at least in the ‘early Buddhist’ thought, who thinks the marks are potentially authentic.Inedible wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 12:46 pm What do people here think about the idea that the major and minor marks could just be a cultural thing rather than absolute truths about the appearances of Buddhas and Wheel Turning Monarchs? I read that because physical ideals have changed, a person with all the major and minor marks would seem more like a freak of nature than an ideal now. It has been a few years since I read this, unfortunately, so I can't say who wrote that. But I have had my own concerns about these marks ever since I first encountered the list.
These marks are the result of specific kammas made in previous lives, as is detailed in the lakkhana sutta. We know from other non-controversial suttas that kammas determine a person’s appearance. We also see specific marks appear in other suttas, such as the Dona sutta: wheels on the bottom of the feet, and golden skin in various other suttas
Most of the marks themselves are nothing particularly odd, and the few that are I could consider there was a clerical error in transcription or another reason. The one about the arms, for example, it says without bending he can reach his knees. This doesn’t mean necessarily his arms reach to his knees, he may use his upper body to do so. He would have likely been able to do yoga and there are yogis who can reach their knees without bending
I did want to read this paper by anālayo because as I recall there may be discrepancies between sutta and āgama.
I host a sutta discussion via Zoom Sundays at 11AM Chicago time — message me if you are interested
- salayatananirodha
- Posts: 1479
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:34 am
- Contact:
Re: Anālayo on 32 marks
We know also the Buddha could alter his appearance, as he does so among various assemblies while teaching the dhamma. (Forgot which sutta I read this in)
The marks themselves are detectable to one who is trained in seeing them. If one can believe in heaven, hell, ghosts, etc then I don’t see what’s hard about having an open mind to this. The range of a Buddha’s power is an unknowable, and thinking about it brings madness. We can assume the range of his power then is pretty damn expansive
‘Early Buddhists’ so often use sheer historical and internal logic in order to eviscerate the suttas, and I for one find it to be consistent with the teachings that say the dhamma is in decline. (True dhamma only lasted uncorrupted for five hundred years)
Thank you for linking the paper tho and I do want to check it out
The marks themselves are detectable to one who is trained in seeing them. If one can believe in heaven, hell, ghosts, etc then I don’t see what’s hard about having an open mind to this. The range of a Buddha’s power is an unknowable, and thinking about it brings madness. We can assume the range of his power then is pretty damn expansive
‘Early Buddhists’ so often use sheer historical and internal logic in order to eviscerate the suttas, and I for one find it to be consistent with the teachings that say the dhamma is in decline. (True dhamma only lasted uncorrupted for five hundred years)
Thank you for linking the paper tho and I do want to check it out
I host a sutta discussion via Zoom Sundays at 11AM Chicago time — message me if you are interested
Re: Anālayo on 32 marks
Hi,salayatananirodha wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 8:26 pm
‘Early Buddhists’ so often use sheer historical and internal logic in order to eviscerate the suttas, and I for one find it to be consistent with the teachings that say the dhamma is in decline. (True dhamma only lasted uncorrupted for five hundred years)
Could you provide an example of 'sheer historical and internal logic' eviscerating the suttas?
And could you provide some evidence of 'True dhamma' lasting uncorrupted for only 500 years?
Re: Anālayo on 32 marks
Because they don't know that they are the 'Latest Buddhists'. May be not even Buddhists.salayatananirodha wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 8:26 pm ‘Early Buddhists’ so often use sheer historical and internal logic in order to eviscerate the suttas,
salayatananirodha wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 8:26 pm Thank you for linking the paper tho and I do want to check it out
Good move!
Who want to buy "unnecessary" doubts while already having Vicikicca as a fetter.