Sakyamuni taught a Buddhism that wasn't written down for some time. As a result however "conservative" the teaching, odds are it represents an oral heritage that may differ in content, recollections, and some specifics about what "really happened" to the real Shakyamuni. The earliest records show the development of at least 6 sects dominated by teachings that are similar to those preserved by the one survivor of that time, know known as "Theravada." Breakoff schools included some that eventually developed "new" doctrines and "sutras" to back them, and these became known as the "Mahayana" movement. Most of these early schools were distinguished by location, which could be easily bridged, and "praxis" -- which was a more severe obstacle. For instance the Mahayana, with their new "praxis" referred to the older schools as Hinayana or "lesser vehicle" and their sutras reflect a Buddha who "refutes" what he'd said earlier in the interests of going to a deeper level of understanding. Monks of different schools could study together as long as their practices were similar, but new sects over time would become quite different or even hostile to one another. Teachers like Ashvagosha, Nagarjuna, and Chi' Hi (Tientai) added understanding of increasing depth and astonishing wisdom and logic, and buddhism developed into a multiplicity of schools over the next 2000 or so years.
Further Readings:
- For more on Shakyamuni visit these links:
- Good information:
- http://www.san.beck.org/EC9-Buddha.html
- http://www.angelfire.com/realm/bodhisattva/buddha.html
- Better Graphics:
- http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/siddhartha.html
- http://www.sivanandadlshq.org/saints/buddha.htm
Shakyamuni who was said to be a "Buddha" by his followers, existed in a climate, apparantly, where he was believed to be not the only Buddha. He taught in a society that was dominated by the early proponants of something called "Brahmanism" which arrogated priestly and religious functions into a single class of people. For Brahmans "Karma" meant you were born in a certain situation and you were stuck there. Brahmanism taught that there were four (or six) castes of people. Brahmans, Kshatrias, Vaishyas, and Sudras. And that below them were people who were "untouchable." The Kshyatrias were warriors and kings. The Brahmans priests, Vaishyas traders, merchants, and similar. And the Sudras were farmers and laborers. The untouchables were people who were defiled by work that brought them in contact with defiled meats, corpses, and etceteras. For the Brahmans these "castes" became matters of "karma" and unchangeable.
For the Buddha, Buddhahood was not only for the elite. He and many of his followers were from the class of the Warriors and Kings. His efforts for enlightenment were later recaste in almost warrior-like language in order to appeal to and be understood by them. In his teachings, not only did he use examples of other Buddhas in other lands and times, he didn't teach that Buddhahood was solely the property of himself. Later, for the sake of reigning in arrogance, his followers laid the claim for being a Buddha to him specifically and theoretically. But he taught the principle that the purpose of the Buddha was to make all beings equal.
He appears to have been stimulated by different overlapping cultural heritages. One the one hand he inherited the Sanskrit above mentioned, Brahmanical tradition with it's "upanishads" and religious traditions. And on the other hand there were other traditions as well. There were traditions that were inherited from the Shamanism and occult practices of the people of India who weren't Ayran language speakers. There is some evidence that Buddhism arose from these traditions that predate Shakyamuni. And they influenced the rise of the "yogic" and "Tantra" traditions in the entire area.
Buddhism and indeed most World Religion beliefs rise from the cross fertilization between interlocked and interacting cultures. In this case the Indo-Iranian Cultural Complex (which extended as far in influence as Europe and included Hittites, Greeks, Persians as well as "Sanscrit" speakers in it's sphere of inheritance) and the Indian Subcontinent Cultural Complex reflected in this day by the so-called "Dravidian" languages. There is no question but that he was aware of the teachings of his times. Before he reached enlightenment he experimented with a number of existing contemplative traditions.
For more on this visit my page: history of Buddhism/Antecedents.
Shakyamuni had a turbulent and productive life as a teacher. Part of this may be due to teachings being put in his words that were actually taught later, but there is no doubt that he taught something of extraordinary clarity and wisdom. From the initial understanding of the four sufferings, he went to come up with basic understandings of life that are universal and don't depend on blind faith. Rather, his Buddhism is a teaching where he maintained, that his disciples should follow the "Dharma" and not person. This is a consistant teaching of Buddhism. Those who follow lineages where ideas are handed down from teacher to disciple need to be reminded of this on occasion.
Thus the "Three proofs" and Four Reliances are a consistant theme in his actual teachings, whatever school or lineage they may come from. These always have insisted on the role of personal insight, personal truth, and respect for logic as well as introspection or what teachers might tell one. Indeed if modern Buddhists can be criticized, it is often for trying to borrow Shakyamuni's logic and wisdom and then call it their own. Or for the converse, teachers teaching their own ideas and then claiming they are from Shakyamuni.
According to Mahayana teachings, Shakyamuni first taught his older disciples the "Flower Garland Sutra", but these people so failed to grasp what he was saying that he then started training them with precepts and stories. These precepts and stories would later come to be assembled into a "canon" of teachings that would be called the "Tripitaka." There were competing versions of it, and the "Mahayana" movement dismissed the entire thing as "hinayana" and insisted that their own teachings were the teachings of Shakyamuni's last years or of his first days. Thus for Manayanists there is a "middle" and a "final" period of teachings on top of the Tripitaka. For that reason there are two very different sutras with the name "Nirvana Sutra." One is beautiful for its simplicity and wisdom. The other is more fantastic but is also full of wisdom.
Thus the real Shakyamuni, while probably a real person, has also become a myth. The one depicted in many sutras is a superman. The discrepancy is based on his story having passed through many generations of story tellers, some of whom have treated him and his stories as fables, allegories, and have elaborated on his teachings, in the process adding more detail to existing stories or creating new ones. From his initial simple oral teachings, his disciples created a number of monastic traditions. These traditions continued evolving in competition with each other and with other religions. So it's not surprising that he was literally lionized.
His teachings were written down as "sutras", each of which begins with the statement assigned to his disciple "Asanga" "Thus I heard." Early portrayals of him showed him as "empty" and depicted his surroundings without him present, later ones showed him increasingly as a "superhuman." Buddhists established a view of him as having had "32 physical marks" which distinguished him from ordinary human beings. He literally had a lionlike body, and a white tuff between his eyes. He had 31 characteristics that could be depicted in a statue or image, only one characteristic had to be imparted by the believer, that was the "Clear and far reaching voice." By the time of the development of Mahayana Buddhism, people were identifying him with a God or a Supernatural Being, and so Mahayana Texts like the Lotus Sutra portray him as having downright supernatural powers. This was probably appropriate to the times as on the one hand, common people expected miracles and supernatural deeds when validating their beliefs during the time when the Mahayana Teachings were established, and on the other hand, those who took the time to study Buddhism soon learned the allegorical purpose and meaning of such depictions. The only really unfortunate aspect of the mythologizing and the creation of legends, is that people dismiss them as legends and myths, and often miss out on the reason for teaching these legends or myths. They come to see the Buddha as either "in the realm of sages" or as a target of supplication, and don't seek to do as the Buddha said which is to:
"Work out your own salvation"
Buddhism teaches that one should follow the "dharma" or teaching over the person and the intent or heart of a teaching rather than a literal-minded understanding of the texts, so there is no need to envision such a supernatural Buddha to understand Buddhism or reach enlightenment. And indeed, such an understanding actually inhibits reaching full emancipation (enlightenment). Ancient Buddhists, practicing meditation, often had visions of the Buddha's "Reward Body" and believed they were actually learning directly from the master himself. The thirty two characteristics are the "idealized features" and are simply the "reward body" of the Buddha. The cause for enlightenment is to embrace the wisdom of the teachings (Dharma), the aspiration for Buddhahood (worship the buddha), and to work together with the community (Sangha) to reach one's enlightenment in ones present form. The "Dharma Body" (Law Body) of the Buddha is "diamond hard" and indestructable, so in that sense the Buddha is "eternal." Each of us individually has a limited body that only exists for so long, yet through our practice of Buddhism we can acquire the three bodies of a Buddha. That is known as attaining Buddhahood in ones present form, and is the teaching of theLotus Sutra, which is attributed to Shakyamuni as part of this Mahayana teachings.