The Buddha Was An Epileptic

[camerata]

While googling around today I discovered that The City of Tampa, Florida's web page on Famous Persons with Disabilities lists the Buddha as an epileptic. They cite as references Benet’s Readers Encyclopedia 4th Ed. and World Book Encyclopedia. I checked the second one on Amazon and saw this in a customer review:

The only worries that I have are about the reliability of information. For instance, I found that a river in Arunachal Pradesh (India) has been named wrongly, and the people of the region do not recognise the name at all. Similarly, in the entry related to Lord Shri Ram, worshipped by millions of Hindus, there is no mention that he is viewed as divinity by Hindus. This obviously raises doubts whether information related to other cultures or topics is also erroneous.

This kind of errors could be on account of the selection of biased writers (I saw Mr. K.N. Pannikar on the advisory board), or it could be on account of simple errors that anyone could make. Unfortunately, the problem is compounded by the non-responsive attitude of World Book editors. For instance, I wrote to them a couple of time on e-mail, pointing out these discrepancies, but there was no response.

I would love to know the origin of this nonsense.

[chutai]

While googling around today I discovered that The City of Tampa, Florida's web page on Famous Persons with Disabilities lists the Buddha as an epileptic.

If that were true then he certainly wouldn't have been able to take the saffron robe according to The Vinaya which excludes disabled people from ordaining.

[Xangsamhua]

A number of religious figures have been described as epileptic, usually by people hostile to them. Paul the Apostle, the Prophet Muhammad, St Joan of Arc, St Teresa of Avila and Joseph Smith Junior are examples. These are all people who had or were claimed to have had visions and revelations. I've never seen any reference to the Buddha as epileptic. I can't see what evidence there would be of that.

[chutai]

A number of religious figures have been described as epileptic, usually by people hostile to them.

I'm quite confused by this. Why should anyone wish to defame anyone by stating anything concerning epilepsy ? For instance, Shayamuni Buddha had enough detrators based on a whole series of other issues that had nothing whatsoever with whether he was epileptic or not.

There is no reason to assume that he wasn't epileptic and no evidence to suggest that he was. Both are entirely irrelevant. And anyway why not ? He was fully human after all.

I know of a much acknowledged Buddhist leader , who someone was once told that he was a school with him and that he was a sickly child and always off school. To which the wiser recipient of such information couldn't thank him enough for imparting the information; as he thought it a fantastic encouragement as it just goes to show what can be achieved when you use your Buddha nature to overcome even the seemingly most difficult of obstacles.

I'm also reminded of another guy who practices Nichiren Budddhism in the UK, he has no arms, prosthetic or otherwise: so he wears a pouch around his neck and asks people to help by taking what's needed from the pouch for him. On one occasion he shared an experience of how asked this of one guy who just froze. So he asked him kindly again , but the grown man just couldn't bring himself to to perform such a deed and more or less ran away.The guy without any arms then asked his listeners to decide which of them was really the disabled one ?

Physical disability detracts not one iota from what someone can achieve through practice. Even the same shared enlightenment of Shakyamuni Buddha.

[Xangsamhua]

A number of religious figures have been described as epileptic, usually by people hostile to them.

I'm quite confused by this. Why should anyone wish to defame anyone by stating anything concerning epilepsy ? For instance, Shayamuni Buddha had enough detrators based on a whole series of other issues that had nothing whatsoever with whether he was epileptic or not.

There is no reason to assume that he wasn't epileptic and no evidence to suggest that he was. Both are entirely irrelevant. And anyway why not ? He was fully human after all.

I know of a much acknowledged Buddhist leader , who someone was once told that he was a school with him and that he was a sickly child and always off school. To which the wiser recipient of such information couldn't thank him enough for imparting the information; as he thought it a fantastic encouragement as it just goes to show what can be achieved when you use your Buddha nature to overcome even the seemingly most difficult of obstacles.

I'm also reminded of another guy who practices Nichiren Budddhism in the UK, he has no arms, prosthetic or otherwise: so he wears a pouch around his neck and asks people to help by taking what's needed from the pouch for him. On one occasion he shared an experience of how asked this of one guy who just froze. So he asked him kindly again , but the grown man just couldn't bring himself to to perform such a deed and more or less ran away.The guy without any arms then asked his listeners to decide which of them was really the disabled one ?

Physical disability detracts not one iota from what someone can achieve through practice. Even the same shared enlightenment of Shakyamuni Buddha.

Well said, Chutai.

I guess people who want to ascribe epilepsy to religious figures assume that it reduces their credibility, especially if they've claimed to have had visions or heard voices.

As far as I know, epilepsy has nothing to do with hallucinations or delusions (I've only known two epileptics - one quite severe - but neither of them had any hallucinatory experiences that I'm aware of).

I've read a life of Teresa of Avila, by a Jewish author. Teresa had very strong experiences of communication with the risen Christ, which often left her quite ill. Post-Enlightenment Westerners would have difficulty accepting these as objective experiences. However, Teresa was no neurotic; rather a very practical and strong-minded woman who achieved her goals against powerful opposition.

I'm not so sure about Joan of Arc. Marian Warner's biography depicts her as a rather tragic young woman (only 19 when she died), whose voices faded and left her to the mercy of her enemies. She was a pawn in a political game.

Why anyone would ascribe epilepsy to the Buddha, though, beats me. There's no evidence and, as Chutai points out, it's irrelevant, based on prejudice and ignorance about this condition and disability in general.

[bankei]

While googling around today I discovered that The City of Tampa, Florida's web page on Famous Persons with Disabilities lists the Buddha as an epileptic.

If that were true then he certainly wouldn't have been able to take the saffron robe according to The Vinaya which excludes disabled people from ordaining.

The Buddha wasn't ordained according to the vinaya procedures. He was the initiator so the rules didn't apply as there weren't any. Even for the first few years there was no read ordination procedure, just the Buddha uttering a few words to the applicant ('Ehi Bhikkhu') and then they were monks. Vinaya rules were only gradually laid down as the numbers of monks grew and questionable behaviour occurred.

[chutai]

The Buddha wasn't ordained according to the vinaya procedures

That,I would have thought, is self-evident. Not so my irony apparently.

[PhilHarries]

In other religions was epilepsy not seen as evidence of possession by evil spirits (aka the devil).

I know this doesn't strictly apply to Buddhism but if other faiths were to try and discredit it would this not likely be their chosen path?