Was Buddha a great philosopher or a cunning prince?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Gautam Buddha seems to be the most rational thinker of his era. I just like the religion and his preachings. Buddhism originated in India, and it emerged as a modification to the phylosophies of Hinduism, but unfortunately Buddhism did not do well in the land of its origin.

There are certain disputes about Gautam Buddha. He was born in the warrior caste that held a secondary place before the priestly caste of the Brahmins. Although the warriors and priests were “racially” same, but the priests enjoyed a position equivalent to GODS. The Warriors naturally envied the godly position of the priests, and thus when a man like Buddha was born in the warrior caste, they adored him and wanted a new religion “by the warriors, for the warriors”. Thus in its early era Buddhism recieved a boost from the warriors. But the priests were wicked and cunning, they had the power of knowledge and they had created such a Godly place for themselves that the poor Indian people worshipped them. So the only way left for the warriors to publicise their religion Buddhism was to appeal in a different manner to the poor people. Many warriors converted to Buddhism and they appealed that Buddhism will be a religion of equality and mercy, a phrase unheard by the poor exploited people. But Buddhism could not bring an end to the slavery of the poor “non-Aryan” people. There is evidence that Buddha himself married an aboriginal woman to show his feeling for equality. But He also had an Aryan wife, and he ensured that only the son of his Aryan wife gets the kingdom after he left as an aesetic.

There is no doubt that most phylosophies of Buddha are time-less. His verse about materialism being a form of voilence is incredible. It appears so true for the decaying western civilisation today. But was he really a great philosopher or he was a very cunning politician, who ensured that his name would live for a long long time after his death? Did Buddha really believe in equality, or rather he was a person who “used” the sentiments of aborigines to make himself immortal. Is there any possibility of equality in the real world, or is equality only a political tool for the cunning, then and today.

Buddha said he did not wish to be worshipped as a deity(it was not achieved), but was this also a cunning trick? There are probably no sources to know about the daily activity of Buddha, but is it possible that he cleverly participated in state politics along with maintaining his aesetic image. This tool is still practiced in India by politicians.

Today the successors of the warriors and the priests play a similar politics in India, by using the aborigines as vote-banks. The poor remain poor, and the rich get more rich. Today the Aryan race is gone, but the dirty politics continues. Is there any real place for equality in the world?

Renaissance203.

2

From the Mahabharat, i think it’s Ganga putra Bishma?

Karna, son of the Sun god, raised in a lower cast; was not so redily accepted by Bishma into the warrior cast, even though Bishma himself said it is not just by birth but also ability that people are set in casts; and Karna’s ability was obvious. It looks to me like the hindu system ought to be a dynamic meritocracy held up by structured birth right.

I think there is no doubt that Buddha has demonstrated his brahmin abilities. One error rests in the other, perhaps?

3

Well, the big problem with equality is that people mistake it to mean an equality in social position, at all times throughout a person’s life. In truth, no matter how you split it, equality will never exist, unless government breaks and anarchy comes to power.

This is simply because those in the industry of policing a social contract (i.e. the police (go redundancy!)) need to have at least some station higher than those they are policing. Indeed, the very notion that a person can have the right to interfere with another person’s life insinuates a form of inequity in the system.

The closest one can come to a system of equality would be, as mentioned in the initial post, the setting of ability before birth. However, in this field, there is still a great inequity, unless one wants to place the value of a physically handicapped and mentally retarded person on the same level as say the topmost athlete or scientist, in which case you lose people’s drive to contribute to society, since their contribution means fundimentally nothing. Furthermore, such a system would inevitably revert, at least partially, to the defining of class structure: Those who set out with the best of their ability and seize the top tiers of the social ladder will have a vested interest in their own offspring succeeding, regardless of competency (the bushes, cough, cough).

What then, is the best answer? I don’t think there is one. This is, perhaps, the conclusion that Buddah came to when designating his wives. If he did indeed allow the unfavored one to give birth to an heir, he would have been outcasted by his own people, and left without any influence. Thus, the minor sacrifice for the greater good of his message, assuming you believe in the message.

“Into the shit of this world we are born, and within this shit we toil, with our only hope at redemption being an upgrade to a higher, more pleasent form of shit later on”
-Me, quoting myself in true narcissistic form.

4

I would have to say ,
yes for both Buddhism
is a religion of balanced
thoughts and actions so
why must he be of one
and not the other?.

5

Really? I doubt it, therefore there is doubt about it.

The English call this ‘false modesty’. It’s a technique adopted by Socrates too, and Nietzsche, albeit in a modified form. Politicians do it all the time, thus begging the question ‘what’s the justification for you being one of the ‘few’ rather than one of the many?’

6

SATD

Only a few are awake while the many are asleep in Plato’s cave.

7

Just a side note…from what I’ve read, in the case of socrates, its not a matter of false modesty, only of different values. In plato’s appology, socrates says he knows nothing, but that its that precise knowledge of inadequacy that makes a person brilliant ---- thus, that by acknowledging that he has faults, he surpasses a common fault…a very egotistical assertion, when you look at it.

I do agree, however, on the false modesty of buddah. Just thought it’d be an interesting/relevant asside to the comment.

8
  1. I don’t see how by asserting that one has faults does anything to make one ‘better’ or enables one to ‘surpass’ anything. All you have is a person, with faults, who admits them.
  2. What’s the difference between Socrates egotistical claim to modesty and the Buddha’s similar behaviour? Why is ‘false modesty’ not accurate here?

Sorry, I’m really not sure what you mean. Feel free to elaborate.

9

Alright. Lemme try this again. (You’ll have to bear with me, I’m not always best at vocalizing obscure differences)

In the case of buddah, he claimed modesty where it wasn’t necessarily true—called for equality and enlightenment and so on and so forth, while holding to some of the unequal traditions, such as the wife example given by the initial writer.

In my eyes, that would consitute false modesty.

In the case of socrates, he never claims to be modest by any stretch of the imagination…his only claim is that he knows his shortfallings, and that its the knowledge, not the shortcomings, that makes him a better person.

In retrospect, I can see where the similarities between the two exist, but I still believe its a notable difference, in the mannerism and the end goal of the proclaimed modesty.