On the Birth Anniversary of the Buddha

Yesterday was the anniversary of the birth of one whose concern was with enlightenment and awakening. I wrote a small piece on my personal weblog at UC Berkeley to mark that occassion.

May 5, 2004 - Posted by Atanu | Gautam Buddha

8 Comments

Atanu,

Buddha was neither the first nor the last to have attained enlightenment. Isn’t it?

Thousands of Indian saints and even common men have attained nirvana. For instance, Ramana maharishi, Swami Raghavendre, Swami Vivekanand and as lately as 20th century, J Krishnamurthy have enlightenend and then talked, lectured about the causes for sorrow and the solution for it.

In fact, the explicit goal of Transcendental Meditation is to enable the practitioner to transcend the body and realise the atman or the Self. So I think Buddha was one of a select band of people who’ve known the truth. His popularity is because of the way he spread the message of dharma, coincidental with the war and other ravages of that time, which caused a mighty following.

Correct me if I am wrong. That was my understanding.

Buddham Saranam Gacchami
Dhammam Saranam Gacchami
Sangham Saranam Gacchami

Translation
I take refuge in Buddha (all knowing teacher), Dhamma (his doctrines) and Sangha (his cult)

Comment by Sathish | May 5, 2004
Very nice Atanu,

Even Buddha had to undergo 7 stages of meditation before he learnt Vipasanna and attained enlightenment. And true , there may have been many enlightened men before and after him, but I guess he was the only one who taught the world to rely on experiential knowledge and simplified the technique to benefit the common man. That was his greatness.

Comment by Jyoti Iyer | May 5, 2004
Jyoti has answered some of the issues raised by Sathish.

How many humans have attained enlightenment is a question that is undecidable for a number of reasons. First, it depends entirely upon the definition of enlightenment which would vary from person to person. Second, not every person who is enlightened (using any specific definition of the term) is likely to be known us: one can pass one’s life of enlightenment in total obscurity. Enlightenment is not like Hollywood stardom where everyone gets to know about it.

Regarding Sathish’s statement: “His popularity is because of the way he spread the message of dharma, coincidental with the war and other ravages of that time, which caused a mighty following.” I am not aware of any wars that led to the spread of Buddhism. Indeed, peace is a prerequisite for Buddhism to take hold. When people are busy slaughtering each other, the last thing on their minds is the need for enlightenment.

Comment by Atanu Dey | May 9, 2004
I am not aware of any wars that led to the spread of Buddhism. Indeed, peace is a prerequisite for Buddhism to take hold. –Atanu

The effect of Kalinga war on (the spread of)Buddhism shouldn’t be underestimated. Ashoka’s contribution to the spread, by his missionaries and later his sons, is immense. More on Ashoka here.

More than Buddha’s enlightenment, I think the cause for Buddhism’s spread is its espousal of Dharma and non-violence, the principles which are easy to be appreciated by the Junta, esp immediately after the war, and that too – when propounded by a mighty & influential ruler.

Comment by Sathish | May 9, 2004
It is a misreading of history to say that the spread of Buddhism was because of the prevalance of war at that time. The Battle of Kalinga was the tranforming event in the life of Ashoka. That the transformation led him to do something does not therefore mean that the agent of that transformation was the causal factor behind the spread of Buddhism. Imagine that Ashoka had got acute food poisoning one night and in his misery, he got delirious and saw visions. Next morning, when he was still down and out, he heard a Buddhist sermon and was somehow transformed. And this lead him to send out monks to preach Buddhism. Would then one say that the prevalance of food poisoning was the reason that Buddhism spread outside India?

Buddhism spread because the message of the Buddha makes sense to people who are in search of answers to some of life’s persistent questions. This can happen only when there is peace and tranquility, not war. If war was what made people receptive to Buddhism, then the Middle East would be full of Buddhists, instead of the Islamists you see there.

Comment by Atanu Dey | May 9, 2004
Buddhism spread because the message of the Buddha makes sense to people who are in search of answers to some of life’s persistent questions

This statement is absolutely correct, no contesting that.

How much of an effect Kalinga war had on Buddhism’s spread – I don’t think debating on this question will do justice to our time.

Your story of Ashoka’s food poisoning made an interesting read. :-)) No more comments on that.

Comment by Sathish | May 10, 2004
OK, I too will not waste any more time debating a simple instance of a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Merely because Buddhism spread after Ashoka’s epiphany on the battlefield of Kalinga does not necessarily mean that wars led to the spread of Buddhism is my point.

Comment by Atanu Dey | May 10, 2004
I thought the strength of Buddhism lay in the complementarities of religion and science that it establishes by its encouragement of scientific verification or refutations of Buddhist dogma. Personally, to me it says “shape up or ship out!” Way to go….

PS:Hi!

Comment by Madhu Sameer | February 7, 2007