Original Buddhism versus Later Forms

[duvduv]

I didn't realize how much Buddhism "developed" over the centuries, long after Gautama was said to have lived, including the forms of Mahayana and Tantric Buddhism, not to mention the innovations of Nagarjuna in reinventing teachings to be portrayed as seriously atheistic (sunyata/emptiness and anatman/no-soul), with the logical problems involved. So many developments occurred that are called "Buddhism" but are from the teachings of later movements rather than attributed to Gautama himself. Seems like there was alot of confusion involved in trying to understand what was attributed to Gautama from the earliest writings and what emerged among others much later.
And of course the intent of Gautama was not to establish a new religion, so "Buddhism" per se did not exist for a long time, just as we know that "Hinduism" is a modern catch-all for all the Indian religious philosophies, including Vedism (Sanatana Dharma). Indeed, the original teachings of Gautama should easily be included in a reforming Vedic context rather than as something new.

 

[james dixon]

I didn't realize how much Buddhism "developed" over the centuries, long after Gautama was said to have lived, including the forms of Mahayana and Tantric Buddhism, not to mention.,,,.,,

This is very interesting. Would you please provide some examples of Buddhist thoughts.

thanks in advance

 

[duvduv]

This is very interesting. Would you please provide some examples of Buddhist thoughts.
thanks in advance

Check this www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkTc0z0SM_I
Check in Google with: "Theoria Apophasis" youtube Buddhism

 

[Twilight Hue]

I didn't realize how much Buddhism "developed" over the centuries, long after Gautama was said to have lived, including the forms of Mahayana and Tantric Buddhism, not to mention the innovations of Nagarjuna in reinventing teachings to be portrayed as seriously atheistic (sunyata/emptiness and anatman/no-soul), with the logical problems involved. So many developments occurred that are called "Buddhism" but are from the teachings of later movements rather than attributed to Gautama himself. Seems like there was alot of confusion involved in trying to understand what was attributed to Gautama from the earliest writings and what emerged among others much later.
And of course the intent of Gautama was not to establish a new religion, so "Buddhism" per se did not exist for a long time, just as we know that "Hinduism" is a modern catch-all for all the Indian religious philosophies, including Vedism (Sanatana Dharma). Indeed, the original teachings of Gautama should easily be included in a reforming Vedic context rather than as something new.

A lot can come out of obscurity. I think of it as the flowering of the Dharma.

 

[LuisDantas]

I didn't realize how much Buddhism "developed" over the centuries, long after Gautama was said to have lived, including the forms of Mahayana and Tantric Buddhism, not to mention the innovations of Nagarjuna in reinventing teachings to be portrayed as seriously atheistic (sunyata/emptiness and anatman/no-soul), with the logical problems involved.

As in "none", you mean?

So many developments occurred that are called "Buddhism" but are from the teachings of later movements rather than attributed to Gautama himself. Seems like there was alot of confusion involved in trying to understand what was attributed to Gautama from the earliest writings and what emerged among others much later.

Fundamentalism is not a positive trait in Buddhism. We are supposed to cherish developing the Dharma.

And of course the intent of Gautama was not to establish a new religion,

Where did you get that idea from?

so "Buddhism" per se did not exist for a long time, just as we know that "Hinduism" is a modern catch-all for all the Indian religious philosophies, including Vedism (Sanatana Dharma). Indeed, the original teachings of Gautama should easily be included in a reforming Vedic context rather than as something new.

Many people do indeed want to subsum Buddhism into Hinduism.

It is almost ironic that many Hindus actually claim that Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu... and we Buddhists refuse that claim.

 

[duvduv]

How is it know that the Pali scriptures were composed far earlier than the Mahayana sutras when they were all put to writing around 1st century BC to 2nd century CE? Furthermore, since even the Pali documents came several hundreds years after Gautama supposedly died what is the proof that even the Pali writings and certainly the Sanskrit ones refer to an actual man who ever lived? Isn't it possible that they were all the writings of philosophers who attributed their teachings to a mythical person, the same as the Bhagavad Gita is attributed to someone (Krishna) whose existence cannot even be proven either? And if Gautama never existed, how would this effect the meaning of the teachings?