McBell
Unbound
And when that renders an un-determinable result?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Did the Buddha exist?
- Thread starter Dawnofhope
- Start date
That is the most likely conclusion due to the absence of any contemporaneous documentation or archeological artifacts. It is an outcome I'm comfortable with.
Buddhism is the fourth largest religion with an estimated 500+ million followers or about 7% of the world's population. The religion is based on the teachings of the Buddha, a character who is widely believed to have existed two and a half thousand years ago.
Did the Buddha really exist, and if so what is the evidence? An interesting and brief paper written by Dhivan Thomas Jones examines two competing views of scholars with an interest in the historical Buddha. One view consigns the Buddha to mythology as there is no scientific or empirical existence he existed. The competing view is the Buddha did exist based on an assumption that its the most plau explanation based on the available texts.
The debate is summarized:
Did the Buddha Exist? Contemporary scholarly debate about the historical Buddha
I remember the first time I heard someone doubt the existence of God. I was on a school bus, and Robert Neil said he didn’t believe in God. We were ten. I was shocked, as everything I knew about th…dhivanthomasjones.wordpress.com
What are your thoughts? Did the Buddha exist? On what do you base your conclusions?
I haven't done a deep dive on the topic, but my gut impression is that the Buddha was probably originally a real person but then myths grew up after his death that canonized him.
Interestingly, unlike Judaism and Christianity which depend heavily on the historicity of their religion's claims about their founders, Buddhism really doesn't. The core tenets of Buddhism aren't dependent on whether Siddhartha Gautama was a historical person. But it's an interesting question to analyze nonetheless.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Buddhist writings do not appear until centuries after the man. Thus, we really don't have any accurate records. I think the odds are that he existed, but who knows what his life was really like or what he actually taught.Buddhism is the fourth largest religion with an estimated 500+ million followers or about 7% of the world's population. The religion is based on the teachings of the Buddha, a character who is widely believed to have existed two and a half thousand years ago.
Did the Buddha really exist, and if so what is the evidence? An interesting and brief paper written by Dhivan Thomas Jones examines two competing views of scholars with an interest in the historical Buddha. One view consigns the Buddha to mythology as there is no scientific or empirical existence he existed. The competing view is the Buddha did exist based on an assumption that its the most plau explanation based on the available texts.
The debate is summarized:
Did the Buddha Exist? Contemporary scholarly debate about the historical Buddha
I remember the first time I heard someone doubt the existence of God. I was on a school bus, and Robert Neil said he didn’t believe in God. We were ten. I was shocked, as everything I knew about th…
What are your thoughts? Did the Buddha exist? On what do you base your conclusions?
Secret Chief
Veteran Member
He lived (if he did!) in a non-writing culture, I believe. This is apparently why there is a lot of repetition in the Pali canon, as it aided memorisation. Members of his sangha memorised, repeated and passed on his teachings until finally being written down many years later. Not ideal but there you go (poor planning by god for his messenger don't you think).
I think he is made up. Why? I believe there was tons of Messengers and not all the religions agreed with each other. An easy way to unite all religions, is to say many of the the Messengers talked about and stories about them, were Buddha's past lives. Thus it was a way to unite all stories of various religions and sects and unite them.
To pick a religion and latest Messenger was too much of a headache for an empire probably and would be hard to unite people.
I think it's all to useful and I don't believe Buddha taught all those stories about him.
However, I don't believe a Messenger of God would not concentrate on the creator nor acknowledge Hindu gods nor not emphasize on succession of similar to him nor teach reincarnation nor teach karma is automatic and soul does not exist in reality.
To pick a religion and latest Messenger was too much of a headache for an empire probably and would be hard to unite people.
I think it's all to useful and I don't believe Buddha taught all those stories about him.
However, I don't believe a Messenger of God would not concentrate on the creator nor acknowledge Hindu gods nor not emphasize on succession of similar to him nor teach reincarnation nor teach karma is automatic and soul does not exist in reality.
My understanding is that even in Judaism, there was reliance on oral traditions and memorisation for centuries after Moses and there wasn't much if anything written down to much later. So the lack of contempory evidence for both Moses and Buddha doesn't negate they were real people who lived.
In regards historicity, there is certainly a great deal more to go in regards Christianity, but there are no records of Jesus writing anything down and the earliest Gospel accounts weren't written until 70 AD. Muhammad who emerged as a Prophet in the seventh century was illiterate but the Quran was written in His lifetime.
Reliance on oral traditions over many centuries does raise questions about the authenticity of the teachings attributed to any religious founder.
Secret Chief
Veteran Member
As I said, I think Siddy probably did exist, but by far the more relevant issue for me is what Buddhism says and what I make of it. "Buddhism" consists of so much more than the supposed words of just one person.
Whether or not he existed, the stories passed down around him, and the teachings of Buddhism hold their own lessons and truths.
Why should it matter if he existed or not? If you proved that he didn't, the teachings of Buddhism would hold their value all the same.
Why should it matter if he existed or not? If you proved that he didn't, the teachings of Buddhism would hold their value all the same.
I was going to mention this. Buddha is a label for those on the path. It isn’t a name.
Siddartha was the first Buddha’s name. He is referred to as a historical person and is never said to have done any magic, so that has credibility.
We could say that about any religion. There's usually interest in the early followers and associates of the founder along with those who promoted the teachings in the early centuries. How the teachings were practiced and adapted as circumstances changed and evolved is good to know.
Buddhism because it emerged 2.5 thousand years ago in a culture where literary wasn't well established is obscured in the mysts of time.I'm good with all that. It appears there is some sensitivity about this whole issue with the suggestion the OP question is irrelevant and meaningless. It may be a question that is of no interest to some, but in understanding Buddhism, I need to have a sense of who Siddhartha was and what motivated him. The lack of contemporaneous records makes that task difficult.
You appear to identify with Buddhism and it presumably works for you. I looked into Tibetan Buddhism some years ago but there were cultural barriers in pursuing it further at the time.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I don't think you can, given the amount of time that has passed.
Most engaged Buddhist practices focus on the here and now and the effectiveness of the practice and its insights.
The knowledge that it goes back to a source attributed to the Buddha would have to suffice givin the futility of proving something that ancient and long-ago in any kind of detail or confirmation.
It's really a bit like the Zen koan addressing original face.
McBell
Unbound
So you are comfortable not being able to know the truth?
I ask because you said
To be honest I'm a little surprised at the level disinterest in regards what is real and what is fiction, what is truth and what is myth.
Why is it surprising that people are not interested in chasing down something they already know can not be determined?
McBell
Unbound
i agree.
Honestly, I do not feel I know enough about Buddha himself or the religion to offer up much of a conversation about either.
Especially if said conversation is going to get into specifics.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Buddhism really isn't any different than any other religion of ancient origins where the window of archeology can only look back so far.
I agree.
It would matter to me if I followed a religion called Buddhism with a teacher called Siddhartha Buddha. Religion is an important part of my life so I would want to have a reasonable understanding about the origins of the religion I devote myself to. The whole question is clearly unimportant to some Hindus and Buddhists who have taken the time to respond to the OP.
Am I thinking like a Westerner about religion where as a practitioner of an Abrahamic Faith my thought processes are very different to those of cousins within Dharmic traditions? Probably, but that is my prerogative to reflect deeply as it is another's to care little about such questions.
Btw, your avatar is very cute!
I do think there's a difference between the mindsets of Abrahamic and Dharmic practitioners, generally speaking.
To believe in an Abrahamic faith, you generally are taking something is going to happen, or some laws have been laid out by faith, and that faith is generally put in a human prophet or messenger. I can see why someone would take care to figure out what they feel is correct; don't want to be lead astray.
With Dharmic faiths, its totally different. We don't really need to take for faith that an avatar existed/didn't exist. The lessons of the Buddha are generally common sense(in my opinion), and you don't even have to be Buddhist to appreciate it. There are some aspects of belief(such as reincarnation and the wheel of samsara), but Dharmics don't generally require as much conformity as the majority of Abrahamics sects do. Two Dharmics can believe very different things but still honor each other's beliefs as valid.
There is good enough historical evidence of the society and culture in which Buddha lived and taught. That gives the context. If you want exactly dated eye witness records, you won't find any for anything in India till Delhi Sultanate for most people and events.
Archaeological discoveries confirm early date of Buddha's life
Last edited:
I am no expert, but from what I know it feels that the early written Dharma (the Tipitaka / Tripitaka) doesn't really make much use of the idea of previous Buddhas nor of previous lives of Siddharta Gautama. Probably some, even if as allegory, but not that much.
I don't think that there is a real parallel to the Muslim conceptions of a Messenger (or shall I say, of a Messiah) in the Dharmic traditions. Perhaps in some Bhakti-oriented Sampradayas and comparable groups, but generally speaking it would be odd to meet a teacher that claimed to speak on behalf of some Deva. I personally don't know what I would make of that.
Not sure what you mean by the mention of the headache for an empire. Are you talking about the reign of Ashoka? I don't think that it was nearly as active in shaping Buddhism as you seem to assume.
There was certainly a lot of mystification. Of of the reasons why we now have the division between Mahayana schools and Theravada is the inclination of distinct groups towards attributing different levels of supernaturalism to the teachings, and one of the reasons why the Abidhamma was written was to help in consolidating groups around specific interpretations of it.
That is to be expected, although I acknowledge that it can be a bit disturbing for some. Unity of interpretation and of doctrine may be reassuring for many, but it is not clear that it can be worth the price for attaining it. I personally suspect that it rarely or even never is.
It is certainly true that Buddhism isn't Abrahamic, does not use Abrahamic conceptions of deity nor of soul (and specifically denies the Hindu "Atman).
Historical or not, the Buddha does not present itself as a Messenger of God. Nor does the Buddha Dharma, even though many people insist on presenting Buddhism as somehow comparable to Abrahamic creeds and even the Hindu Devas (which aren't really used except very peripherically in Buddhism) to Allah and other Abrahamic conceptions of deities.
I don't know what you mean by automatic Karma.
Reincarnation is a concept that comes in varied forms. Some are animistic, others are Hindu (but generally very different from the animistic ones), but AFAIK none are Buddhist. Rebirth is not reincarnation, mainly because reincarnation requires or assumes a soul or atman.
Thanks for your post, @Dawnofhope ; hopefully discussion of these matters will shed some light on the difference of nature and expectations between Abrahamic and Dharmic traditions.
Oral tradition is often undervalued. Much can be achieved by developing a community of adherents willing to learn, dictate and hopefully improve on a doctrine.
Direct transmission is a valued and IMO central and very welcome feature of Buddhism (and other Dharmas). Counterintuictive as that may appear, one of the main duties of a lineage of transmission is actually to change and update the teachings in order to make and keep them relevant, healthy and useful.
The eventual development of a written doctrine isn't the panacea that some people believe it to be. It is not even clear that written doctrine is at all helpful or desirable. Reverence to texts is hardly unknown in Buddhism, but it isn't central either (and that is a very good thing IMO).
In a Buddhist context, Boddhidharma (himself a person of questionable literal existence) is said to have an aversion to reliance on written texts and to favor direct experience as a superior alternative. Gotta love him...
Literally nothing short of time travel can negate the hypothetical existence of people living that far back. It is really a Russel's Teapot situation.
en.wikipedia.org
It seems to me that there is a lot more interest in determining whether Jesus existed and arguably in deciding that he did. To me personally the evidence available is both rather flimsy and rather suspect - and don't get me started on how it has been handled.
Muhammad is rather better solidly established as a real, historical person than Jesus, Buddha or Moses. Part of it is the later date, but also the events themselves. Whole traditions were established around the lineage of Muhammad through Ali, Fatimah and their descendants. And before then there were so many and populous groups of witnesses of Muhammad and his companions that whole Fitnahs developed inside and among them.
As I established in the previous paragraphs, I don't think of oral traditions as at all inferior to written traditions or written doctrines; quite the contrary really.
But bringing the focus towards written doctrines, it seems to me that generally there may well be significant questions about the authorship, but the tendency is towards the existence of considerably less genuine doubts about the validity of the teachings; those are to be established pretty much independently of any matters of authorship.
The validity of a doctrine or teachings is rarely if ever connected to the authorship unless we expect some sort of supernatural guidance in the shaping of those teachings.
Oral tradition is often undervalued. Much can be achieved by developing a community of adherents willing to learn, dictate and hopefully improve on a doctrine.
Direct transmission is a valued and IMO central and very welcome feature of Buddhism (and other Dharmas). Counterintuictive as that may appear, one of the main duties of a lineage of transmission is actually to change and update the teachings in order to make and keep them relevant, healthy and useful.
The eventual development of a written doctrine isn't the panacea that some people believe it to be. It is not even clear that written doctrine is at all helpful or desirable. Reverence to texts is hardly unknown in Buddhism, but it isn't central either (and that is a very good thing IMO).
In a Buddhist context, Boddhidharma (himself a person of questionable literal existence) is said to have an aversion to reliance on written texts and to favor direct experience as a superior alternative. Gotta love him...
Literally nothing short of time travel can negate the hypothetical existence of people living that far back. It is really a Russel's Teapot situation.
Russell's teapot - Wikipedia
It seems to me that there is a lot more interest in determining whether Jesus existed and arguably in deciding that he did. To me personally the evidence available is both rather flimsy and rather suspect - and don't get me started on how it has been handled.
Muhammad is rather better solidly established as a real, historical person than Jesus, Buddha or Moses. Part of it is the later date, but also the events themselves. Whole traditions were established around the lineage of Muhammad through Ali, Fatimah and their descendants. And before then there were so many and populous groups of witnesses of Muhammad and his companions that whole Fitnahs developed inside and among them.
As I established in the previous paragraphs, I don't think of oral traditions as at all inferior to written traditions or written doctrines; quite the contrary really.
But bringing the focus towards written doctrines, it seems to me that generally there may well be significant questions about the authorship, but the tendency is towards the existence of considerably less genuine doubts about the validity of the teachings; those are to be established pretty much independently of any matters of authorship.
The validity of a doctrine or teachings is rarely if ever connected to the authorship unless we expect some sort of supernatural guidance in the shaping of those teachings.