Question asked by "Wranderer". (Thankyou sir)
Buddha was a slim strong looking and sounding individual in the Indian stories. Now how come the Asian version of Buddha is very large and fat and ungraceful but jolly. How did this happen? It's very unlogical, Buddha did alot of walking all around India and begged for food which meant that he never recieved a huge amount or gorged himself or asked for more than his fill. I know Buddhism isn't as popular in India as it once was but how did he transform into this huge jolly man in it's transition to other parts of Asia. For a character which represents balance the east asian version looks nothing like it.
2 comments:
The simple answer:
That's not Buddha. I'm glad you are at least aware that Buddha was not supposed to be a fat, incredibly jolly man, and that he was fit and begged for food. That's more than the average person probably knows.
The man in question is actually a buddhist equivalent of a saint. Buddha (skinny) was the man who brought the dharma (teachings) to the world - he, in essence, began buddhism by enlightening people and teaching the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. By practicing these and reaching Nirvana, the Buddha was able to escape duhka (suffering) and the wheel of rebirth/life. He was not the first, but he was the first to bring the dharma to the world. He is also not the last.
The fat man is known as Maitreya, or Mi-lo Fwo. He is thought to have also attained Nirvana, and is marked for his generosity towards others. He is a prevalent figure in Chinese Buddhism, but is hardly found elsewhere, except where he is confused with the Buddha in western society.
Sidenote: Most (if not all) buddhists do not consider either Buddha or Maitreya gods. They are not all-knowing, powerful, nor do they even have any effect on the world. Some buddhist cultures will pray to Buddha, but this is mostly a sign of respect, an act of focusing their mind, or simply ritual - buddhists do not expect the Buddha to fix their problems. The Buddha declared that he was not to be deified - he would leave the world with his teachings, and beyond that, his existence would have nothing to do with this world. In literature, he is said to be an extinguished flame - literally, he has gone into nothingness. I interpret this as a kind of duality - he is nothing, but has also become a part of everything.
This is probably a lot more than you wanted to hear, but I hope it helps.
Thank you very very much. By my statcounter report(s) I'm aware most people stumble upon this site through image searches from google, as opposed to meaning to get here and reading the questions. I know some of the questions are in the rhetoric, and some more sarcastic social comment than questions, however sometimes they actually are an actual, answerable question. I appreciate the time you took to answer the question thoroughly, and what I assume to be accurately. This site took me a while to get going and now I'm getting a good amount of hits, but a limited amount of interactivity. 80% of visitors are here for less than 30 seconds. When I bothered looking into the activity of my 100 visitors a day, kinda kicked me right in the ego. Then stabbed it. Stomped it while it was down andd pissed on it.
Long story short, cheers for my first real answer!
Post a Comment