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.

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.
 

Click here to see all Lotus Sculpture's Buddha Statues