Wow, well that's the last lighthearted comment I ever make here. Om mani padme hum...
@golinux: It is not my intent to argue about what Buddhism is or is not, since you are clearly more qualified to do so, but I certainly never said it was a "dogmatic belief system" (as, for example, Roman Catholicism is dogmatic), and it was never asked that I clarify; however, one could read the Siddhartha
myth as a myth, despite the myth's intent: a practical guide, in your words (although this is the intent of most myths, for the cultures from which they emerge). Also, I wasn't referring to you, specifically, and i surely would not argue you given your credentials; I just find it odd how the conversation seemed to nosedive from the former to the latter. Lastly, I thought the video might be entertaining, not mortifying, so i apologize to anyone whose top hat is coated in mud.
If the counter is that i should not have limited Buddhism to the Siddhartha narrative, I'll accept that criticism in advance. However, I speculate, without the germinating myth, would Buddhism really exist in its current form, or even a similar one?
@debiman: Lol, far from a "wild interpretation"...
John 8:58 wrote:
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am.
This is not reflexive (ie, "Jesus is"), but rather an assertation that Jesus is
the great "I Am": the answer YHWY gave to Moses when Moses asked the Abrahamic deity who he was.
This assertion aggravated some serious theological issues.
There is a very long and historical argument about the whole, well, "son of god" thing: whether Christ was just a man with divine blessing or insight, the actual incarnation of god himself, and everything in between and beyond. The gnostic interpretation, for example, is that Jesus was the "son of god" in a similar way that (
DON'T SHOOT ME DOWN GOLINUX) Siddhartha became (or realized he was (please clarify if needed lol)) the Buddha: in other words, that God (or some level of transcendence) is within all of us, and we therefore have the same potential to be as Christ himself; consequently, this "wild interpretation" (which really transcends gnosticism itself, and has been around as long as Apostolic Christianity, that awkward phase before it was institutionalized) constitutes a close
analogue to the Siddhartha myth, which is often used as a talking point for Buddhism, especially in the treatment of myths.
Whether you realized it or not, your point and Campbell's point are actually pretty similar.
Campbell's ambition for comparative mythology, by the way, far from tv evangelicism, was to treat differences with respect while attempting to find what world myths have in common. I think you might appreciate some of his ideas if you gave it more than twenty seconds.