Overview:
Siddhatta Gotama became the Buddha, which means Enlightened or Awakened One. Much about the Buddha’s life and teaching are shrouded in mystery because the sources about them came much later, after Buddha’s death. Even before Buddha, India had a spiritual tradition and culture, supporting those who sought the spiritual life. Monks were providing a social benefit, in satisfying the spiritual need. But during Buddha’s era, there was a spiritual crisis, as many people were disillusioned. Many had made sacrifices to the gods, but the sacrifices did not help them. They decided to rely on themselves.

To go on the spiritual path, Gotama needed to renounce many attachments, as attachments made it hard to break free. Gotama joined the spiritual movement, and sought out teachers. Trying out many practices, Gotama found many of them fundamentally flawed. Creating suffering without spiritual benefits. But then Gotama figured out a spiritual path, and became the Buddha. Aspired to a Middle Way, a way between extremes of self-indulgence, and of asceticism. While searching for total equanimity towards others. The Buddha taught others not accept teachings uncritically, even to test Buddha’s own teaching. Not to rely on false props. To not deny the pain and suffering, but to understand the pain of others, even of detractors.

Sources:
There are very little sources on Gotama during Gotama’s lifetime. Most sources about the Buddha and Buddhism came after. Sometimes centuries after. A council was formed after the Buddha died, some 50 years after. A council meant assess the various doctrines and practices. A second council was formed about 100 years after. The written scriptures by this time had become more formal, and it is these scriptures that are known. The surviving text is more than a millennia after the Buddha.

The scriptures came from memory, which has a problematic transmission of ideas. A lot of the material was probability lost. The material could have been misunderstood. The monks would have projected their own views unto the Buddha. The authenticity of the claims is in question.

The legend is a credible historical fact. Gotama’s personality and preferences are shrouded in mystery. What is known of the Buddha is the self-control, equanimity, and transhuman serenity.

History of a Movement:
People of India have a long tradition of venerating those that seek the spiritual. The monks were providing a social benefit, usually with great sacrifice to themselves.

Aryan Indians dominated India by 1000 B.C.E., divided society into four classes. The brahmins were the priestly caste, who were the decision makers and took responsibility for society. The second class were the ksatriya, warriors dedicated to government and defense. The third class were the vaisya, who were farmers, merchants, and others which delt with the economy. The fourth and lowest caste were sudras, who were slaves or outcasts. The classes were not initially hereditary, as individuals could move between them if they possessed the required skills. But by Gotama’s time, the class system had become sacred and immutable.

During the 9th to 3rd century, there were many diverse sets of ideas and people who searched to better philosophical and spiritual life. An era referred to as the Axial Age. A pivotal time for humanity, for understanding. Many taught how to cope with misery, with a flawed world. Nobody is sure what caused the Axial Age, the intellectual empowerment within China, India, and Iran. Some later dominant religious faiths, came from restatements of the Axial Age impulse.

A pre-Axial religion was the Verdic. Kept external controls of society using rites. Preventing development or change. But for the new religions, the sages no longer accepted the external conformity. Recognized the internal thoughts that preceded action. The Axial sages took a critical understanding of the prior views, and reinterpreted them. Added morals and ethics to their religion. As ethics allowed the individual to take responsibility of action, rather than rely on magic.

The scripts were put to the test of society. Religious life mattered to everyone, rather than a few eccentrics. Not a private affair of the priestly caste, but meant for everyone. Which enabled transmission of the faith to the many. Rather than blind acceptance, what was sought was inquiry and discussion. Teachers would debate their views in public forums, with crowds gathering to hear their thoughts. When a sangha entered a community, many would seek them out and question them about their views, and discuss their merits. These values of the Axial age were the backdrop values of Gotama.

The reinterpreted Vedas provided more spirituality and internalized significance. The Sages spiritual goal became brahman. An impersonal essence of the universe, a source for existence. Pervaded everything in reality. Salvation began to be a spiritual realization that the brahman was the eternal reality. An absolute higher than the gods, and one’s identity.

During the 6th century B.C.E., there was a spiritual crisis in the region. A widespread disillusionment, primarily with the gods. For giving the gods sacrifices did not help the people. People decided that they must rely on themselves. Many felt that spiritual practices that worked for their ancestors, did not work for them. People were desperate for a new religious solution.

Times were changing due to many regions becoming trading posts. Merchants were on the rise, and protected by many kingdoms. The merchants were mostly mobile, and did not fit into the old rituals. Creating a spiritual vacuum.

Indian society felt imprisoned by the cycle of rebirth. The eternal pain and suffering that rebirth brought with it. Rather than consider the extra time rebirth would provide, they focused on the pain of redeath. To go through the chronic suffering again and again, was intolerable.

During Buddha’s life time, there were many renouncers. People seeking what Indian ascetics called homelessness. Many sought homelessness to obtain a spiritual life, which Gotama wanted to join. People who attained homelessness were seen going forth on a noble quest of the holy life. Many competed for the privilege of feeding them. Some became their patrons and disciples. The renunciants were not considered dropouts. The monks left structured space and pursued radical freedom. They cast aside the caste system. They began to be as mobile as the merchants.

Renouncers were meant to seek spiritually, but there had been those who joined them because they sought refuge from the law, or were actual dropouts. But by Gotama’s spiritual journey, the renouncers had become more organized because the efficient kingdoms would not allow anyone to not contribute to society. The renouncers, even the uncommitted, needed to have an ideology to justify their existence. This was meant to prove that they were not parasites, but were philosophers. Philosophers who could facilitate spiritual improvement in others. The teachers and their sangha, their associations, were as competitive in the spread of their views as merchants were competitive in spreading their wares.

Buddhist Development:
Buddhism was developed in response to Gotama’s personal history. Not studying the works of others. But Gotama did interact with other spiritual figures. Gotama found more problems within the alternatives ways to achieve enlightenment, than actual help to achieve enlightenment.

Gotama was said to be destined to become a Universal Monarch, a cakkavatti, or achieve supreme spiritual enlightenment. These two identities were in conflict as the cakkavatti would have to rely on force. To make Gotama into a cakkavatti, Gotama’s father protected Gotama from reality. Creating a pleasure-palace to make sure nothing upsetting happened. Gotama became a virtual prisoner. A place that created a mind in denial. Denial that prevents development of the personality. Living in a delusion. Even within a safety prison, somehow those who were different, came across Gotama. These individuals inspired Gotama to search for an understanding to their differences.

Gotama had found palace life constricting, with pointless tasks and duties. Creating a desire to join the renouncers. To join the homelessness movement. To avoid the domesticity lifestyle. To join the spiritual movement, Gotama would need to renounce Gotama’s family and leave behind many other treasures. The problem with family and treasures was that they created attachment. Attachments that made it very hard to break free. Family life and highest form of spiritual life were incompatible.

Early on, Gotama saw grim cycles of suffering. Starting from the pain of birth, and leading to physical problems, illnesses, death, and corruption. Gotama was emotionally invested in family life, but were also fragile and vulnerable. The attachment would only bring pain. Knowing that suffering was in store for loved ones, detracted from the joy in the relationships.

Gotama’s family was from a region where Aryan culture did not impact, and had no caste system. Although Gotama was not part of a caste system, Gotama initially introduced Gotama as part of the ksatriya, a member responsible for government. Being part of ksatriya gave Gotama a lot of favor and access to many important social figures, while being an objective outsider.

Gotama was looking for a teacher, and a sangha. Gotama had tried many different ways to achieve enlightenment from various teachers. Many just created suffering without spiritual benefits. Some achieved temporary enlightenment. Each had fundamental flaws. Gotama would not accept anything based on trust, and warned Gotama’s sangha to not accept anything on hearsay. To not accept ideas uncritically. What they needed to do was test the views, and make sure that the views resonated with their own experiences.

Gotama started to develop a Middle Way. Between the extremes of shunning physical and emotional self-indulgence, and the extremes of asceticism. Gotama’s aspiration was to achieve total equanimity towards others. Having neither attraction nor antipathy. Needing to divest completely from egotism. An abandonment of preferences, in favor of disinterested benevolence.

After achieving enlightenment, and becoming the Buddha, Gotama did not want to teach Gotama’s views. Knowledge that was obtained was ineffable, and could not be put into words. Each individual would need to find their own enlightenment. But being alone within a private enlightenment would fail a principle of Buddhism, and therefor Gotama sought to spread what was learned. Unlike other religions, Buddhism would not seek to destroy former philosophies. But accepted tolerant partnership with the prior spiritual ways.

Initial attempts at finding followers were difficult, as there are those that did think or want to believe that someone could achieve that which Gotama was describing. But Gotama was able to convince those who knew Gotama before. After which, Gotama was described as being able to convince many people at a time.

Some of Buddha disciples created different schools of thought on Buddhism. Because the Buddha praised both, making them authentic. Authenticity in spite of being different, meant that the different schools could coexist peacefully unlike other religions.

Buddha is usually depicted in silent solitary meditation, but after Buddha started to teach, Buddha was rarely left alone. Usually accompanied by many others, which Buddha requested at times to quite down.

Buddhism is meant for everyone, but practically appealed to the upper classes and intellectuals. The full teachings would be possible for monks, those who fully devoted themselves to achieving enlightenment. Lay disciples that toiled with commercial or reproductive desires, would have to wait until their rebirth for more favorable circumstances. By practicing Buddhism, and appropriate morality, would allow people earn merit for their next life, while also behaving more appropriately in the present one. Part of the reason for the lack of religious equality was because literacy was rare. During those times, to understand Buddhism would require seeking a teacher, rather than studying a text.

Although Buddha would teach to men and women, and accept both as being equal in becoming monks. There are Buddhist text referring to women as inferior, and after being accepted into Buddhism, having far stricter codes of conduct. The differences reflect when the texts of Buddhism were written, reflecting their era’s principles.

Buddha’s Sangha was more a republic than a monarchy. No central authority or controlling ruler. Everyone on the council was equal. Each monk was responsible for oneself. Yet there were monks who sought leadership, and sowed dissension. Created an atmosphere of egotism, which was incompatible with the spiritual life. Much like in public life, the Sangha were not immune from selfishness, ambition, and dissension.

Buddhist Thoughts:
Buddhist do not value charismatic leadership, which is keeping to Siddhatta Gotama’s view. Rather than rely on charismatic leaders, reliance needs to be on one’s own efforts and self-motivation. Charismatic leadership is a distraction for spiritual progress. Everyone can achieve what Siddhatta Gotama did, and obtain enlightenment. People can become dependence on charismatic leadership, which can prevent self-understanding.

The Self or a Supreme Being would inflate the ego, therefor is too limiting and while creating an impediment to enlightenment. A deity giving a seal of sacred approval is unskillful, for it creates a prop for damaging and dangerous egotism that the individual would need to transcend. Enlightenment required a rejection of false props. Even without wanting to, the Buddha has become glorified. In some Buddhist schools, Gotama is virtually deified.

Seeking emotional survival through positive thoughts, enables avoidance of one’s pain and the pain of others. For the Buddha, spiritual cannot begin until the acceptance of the reality of suffering. That suffering is ubiquitous. To understand the pain of others, even of detractors. Refusing to consider suffering means being unprepared when tragedy befalls.

Nibbana is achieved when the passions are extinguished. Attachments and delusions are removed. Buddhism creates an understanding that everything is impermanent. The mental acts that inspired actions were just as important as external forces. That actions have consequences. The self is an illusion, for the personality keeps changing.

Teachings of the Buddha are meant to be tested, and validated empirically using their own experiences.

Caveats?
There are many fascinating comparative analysis and historical backgrounds. But the comparative references can sometimes prevent learning what impacted the Buddha, rather than those who Buddha is compared with.

Much of Buddhism focuses on the individual, the internal reality. Teaching self-control. That focus meant that the external reality was under emphasized, not as well understood. Although there were interactions with the external, the responses focused on the personal reactions. The focus made teaching and helping others become enlightened difficult, because interacting with others requires an understanding of the external reality.
( )

This rich, timely, highly original portrait of the Buddha explores both the archetypal religious icon and Buddha the man.

I read this book while traveling in China where I learned a whole new take on reincarnation. It is seen not as another chance to live again, but instead it poses fear of facing another uncertain death. Hence, the attainment of enlightenment and the escape from the death/rebirth cycle is the goal. ( )

Ideally, one would support a worthy author/book by both buying it and reading it intelligently. I did the former action over ten years ago, and with the help of my local library I’ve set about doing the latter action without repeating the former.

Anyway, I guess I’m mostly drawn to the idea of an Aleister Crowley-style Buddhism-influence—don’t laugh; it could happen. A lot of the Mahayana people were more similar to that sort of thing than stereotype gives them credit for, you know…. One doesn’t have to unconditionally reject sex and things of the earth in order to become more like a Buddha, or to ‘realize’ one’s ’Buddha-nature’, if you like, which Buddhists say all beings have. One just has to have a certain sense that freedom is a valuable commodity whether one has sex or not, and that there is a spiritual element to life beyond what seems apparent on grey, rainy days—or even when we think that things can’t get any better; when the British man tells us that ‘you can’t say fairer than that’, you know.

…. Anyway. I mean, like she says, it used to be worse in the Victorian/Wilhelmine times—those people were really insufferable—and she along with others has kinda taken a few steps back from the yawning precipice of insanity compared to them, but still sometimes I don’t quite agree—don’t see history as being quite so holy; “so grey! so divine!”: and positive thinking as being quite so scary, you know. “What will happen to my all-grey interiors?” But as much as I think that Buddha who whoever was probably capable of something other than all-grey interiors if it came to that, if some delusion-is-enlightenment fancy came upon him, sometimes I still agree with Karen, you know. Life is filled with mystery and puzzle, and compassion is important, sometimes more so than we know, and sometimes people are attracted to holy indifference and not beaten over the head with it, right. And obviously some of those ideas she got from, “Siddhatta”….

And God, so much better reading it now. In school they don’t teach you to think, to have opinions; they certainly do NOT teach you that you’re allowed to have your own damn opinion, and so when a non-factual aspect of a question comes up, suddenly the good boy is helpless. Lord knows they’ll never teach you positive thinking the way they’d teach you stuffing-your-feelings-the-better-to-add-numbers-my-dear, or even Buddhism, for that matter!, so if practically any aspect of contemporary life comes up you’re just helpless. “Positive thinking? What’s that? Gee whiz, what you I think?” You can’t agree; you can’t dissent meaningfully. All you can do is pout that it’s not in the Victorian Shakespeare commentaries, and throw a fit—or dissolve in a pool of tears that it’s not a historical/mathematical fact, like, in 500 AD, four hundred elephants lived in Raj-ville, true or false—you know? (smile) Yes, they don’t really teach us in these schools…. Other civilizations had faulty schools too: just ~memorizing~ the subjective grand truths was common, so you could quote it, and forget about it, you know—and slavery of various kinds was common, of course…. But I talk about what I know. We’re not sane yet….

…. I don’t want to go hard on the sages of the various lands—perhaps the book could have been called ‘Buddha and the sages of the various lands’—but a lot of harm can come through these theories of stages of development, and therefore, obsolete stages, and therefore, colonialism and mind-hijacking and mind-violence, you know. I don’t know why thinking that all of the scriptures came from the ‘great time’ or whatever, except the Vedas, would make more sense than saying that all the Americans are holy except for the Jews (because of their funny hats—wear a baseball cap!) or the Catholics ~ because they’re not ‘Axial’ enough…. And you know that that’s exactly what Luther would say, if he believed in scholarly-non-cyclical-phases-of-development theory instead of just trash-talking people and handing them over to the devil, you know….

Really, all of these things are cycles. From Samhain to Beltane, life goes irreversibly in one direction, never to return, the earth will just get hotter and hotter and so on forever…. Or until Mabon, I guess, or Samhain.

I mean, there have been times in my life when I believed in that, you know—the stages, the obsolete stages, the necessity of progress and ultimately violence and all-knowing books, you know…. It’s noble. It’s just not true—not really, anyway.

Although you could probably be a Buddhist and not be even vaguely like that, you know; but a lot of Western Buddhist-y writing is like that. “Buddha and I are united in our rejection of all obsolete pornographic non-monastic/scriptural civilization…. Have you got anything to add Buddha of course not. I got you, bro. I got you.” 😎

…. It’s ok, I guess. I know she didn’t set paper to ink, and stop to think, Now how can I hurt the Hindus, you know.

She’s just odd, you know.

(A Northanger Abbey character regards Karen Armstrong as General Tilney, whom another character is slighting for always having a law on her lips and a battle on her face)

(she disagrees, murmuring) “It’s her way.”

…. It’s not an awful book, but it does feel like a sort of General Jane Tilney, you know. Ironically I picked this up thinking, “It’s foolish to be ashamed of every Anglo writer on Buddhist topics….” 😸

I guess if there were a slot, though, you could almost rebrand it as ‘Buddha: A Very Short Introduction’, you know. Gods and buddhas know it would be better than some of those books. I’d go so far as to say that it doesn’t say anything literally wrong, or intentionally and/or unconsciously act out; it’s just very…. Distanced. Not dishonest, but distanced. Not the whole truth.

…. India can be beautiful—just to be reminded that sometimes all you need to be happy is just to breathe correctly, as if you weren’t awake, right—but I do think that in the old days, for the average person it was very much a case of, Give a monk a cookie, Mr. Mouse, and maybe he’ll remember us when he attains that to which we were all born to attain…. Eventually we will all have to become sane, though, although I don’t think it will be enough to just stamp your foot and recite Genesis 1 from memory, you know. We have made minimal progress towards ‘ordinary people’ who eat potatoes now and again practicing spirituality and being reasonably happy, (I think for a lot of people in ancient times, the idea of just living again was just torture, like your torture would never end because you’d always be alive, right), but we’re not there yet, right—to that ‘all-sane’ place….

But, although it can (like Christian quietism or anything else that can devolve into apathy, basically) be used to justify colorism and so on, and conditions that shouldn’t exist for anyone, even if they demanded it—American prisons, for example—but I can’t help but WONDER, Wouldn’t it be nice if it were all alright, because karma and reincarnation were real, and whatever we asked for we would get, so that we would be happy if only we could stop asking for bad things we never deserved, and we could get the good things, in this life or in another life, in another body in another time in this same world….

…. “…. certainly fictional, after all, everyone is always average, even the gods and buddhas….”

It almost IS like reading Northanger Abbey again! (Henry Tilney) (waves hand) Battles were never fought around castles, Catherine. Everyone has always had tea at four o’clock or whenever it is that we have tea. And people have always played little tinkle-dinkle songs on the piano, too. That’s the way it is now, the way it always was, and the way it always will be. But don’t talk to me about eternity; it’ll never happen like that.

…. I think it’s debatable whether an enlightened (“part-enlightened”) commercial-sexual desire or a social-compassionate enlightened (not F-you I’m enlightened) ultimate-consciousness is better for social life, but it is true that the Buddha usually promoted compassion and everything.

I say usually because his instincts were to exclude women, of course. It’s funny; people inevitably say that the non-pagan religions or whatever, the mainstream religions of modernity, and the male-style philosophical way, was the best and only way; however, it was awful for women…. Whoops. Well, it wasn’t good for women; it was just good for Everybody, you know…. I don’t know; it’s funny. Even as a moral or non-chauvie or whatever you want to say, mainstream religion of modernity/male-style philosopher, like I used to be, you want to include women by integrating them into the male-style way, you know. The other way is scary. Even the male-style lovers are scary. You need the isolation…. And obviously many philosophers are chauvie men and have the impulse to exclude. But many people even not of the male elite have benefited from Buddhism, including women—both because of the whole mothering/supporting thing, which makes them support almost anything, and the desire to get at least some seat at the table at the deep thought club, if they’re another kind of girl, you know.

I suppose one has to be a little skeptical of the whole “Everyone says” argument—no orthodoxy is actually what every fucking person says—while at the same time acknowledging a rather broad band of support. Like she says, all the involuntary state/military organizations from the Buddha’s time are dead, but his own voluntary organizations are still in business.

…. Shy Buddhists often present Buddhism as a sort of Asian Christianity, but there are (non-trivial/historic-ethnic) differences; the Buddha seems to have taught less of dependence and commanding-others than has been the faith of the church. (And surely, if we risk our freedom by cultivating dependence, we ask others to risk their sanity by resorting to commands!)

Recently, I have become interested in learning a bit more about the philosophy and different religions of the East. Being a Westerner I don't have a lot of exposure to that part of the world. In school I was taught a bit about the big philosophers -- Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. To my recollection, I wasn't taught anything about Confucius, Lao Tzu or the multitude of other great thinkers of Asia.

After listening to [b:Great Minds of the Eastern Intellectual Tradition|16117557|Great Minds of the Eastern Intellectual Tradition|Grant Hardy|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1476747674l/16117557._SX50_.jpg|21935755] the subject piqued my interest and out of all the different schools of thought I learned about from said audiobook one stood out for me-- Buddhism.

The audiobook mentioned above laid a good foundation so I knew a good amount before jumping into Buddha and I think that helped a lot. Armstrongs' work helped solidify my knowledge and understanding of Buddhism and what it taught. A lot of the teachings I related to and agreed with. My moral compass aligns with many of the Buddha's viewpoints about compassion, empathy and love. Emotions like anger and jealousy or being vainglorious do nothing but harm ourselves and can harm others as well.

Separating yourself from desire can be a good thing. Really ask yourself: do I really need that shiny new television or spend 'x' amount on those new sneakers? I (like many, if not all of us) struggle with desire and want everyday. We can however realize this fault and try our best to be better. We can try to be more charitable and donate time and money to those of less fortune.

I do not believe in reincarnation (I'm irreligious) or someone having the ability to achieve 'nibbana'. I am still very much about scientific inquiry, skepticism, and critical thinking. To my surprise, the Buddha actually taught this as well, not take his or anyone else's word on hearsay, but to think for yourself. He also taught that enlightenment could be achieved without a higher being or a god, that it was done completely by you. These two teachings also called out to me.

I don't identify myself as a Buddhist, but I will very much apply many of his teachings to my life. I've started meditating when I can and I wish to try yoga. I will continue to empathize with others, believe that love can solve many of the world's problems, and be compassionate and kind to others.

A simple smile or a 'good morning' is enough to pass happiness to someone who may need it. ( )