Did the Buddha exist?

[Dawnofhope]

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:

I will conclude with two thoughts. One is that a bit of epistemology, the study of knowledge, can help us see how these scholars are talking across each others’ assumptions about what would count as knowledge about the Buddha’s historical existence. The second is that we should be careful about using the phrase ‘the historical Buddha’. It might be taken as implying that there is solid, factual, positivist, empirical evidence for the existence of the Buddha. But there isn’t. And if we mean that our best explanation for all the evidence we have is that the Buddha was a historical figure, we should also say, ‘though we can’t know for sure’.

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?

 

[sayak83]

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?

Historical standards for evidence of "existence" are much lower than scientific standards. The reason is simple...the background probability that a normal guy (2 hands, 2 feet etc) was born, did and said some stuff and then died...is very high compared to , the background probability of light bending due to gravity. So I would say that the current evidence from history is sufficient to infer the existence of Buddha as a person.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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?

Maybe the Buddha existed, maybe the Buddha didn't.

 

[danieldemol]

I voted poll doesn't reflect my thoughts since I dont know

 

[Secret Chief]

I reckon he probably did but I don't lose much sleep over it. For me, what really matters is: does e equal mc squared? Or not? Whether or not Einstein was a real person becomes less important over time (except to his family).

 

[SalixIncendium]

I find debates on whether or not religious teachers such a Buddha, Krishna, Jesus, etc existed to be boring exercises in futility. Why does it matter?

The value, as I see it, is in the teachings themselves, not the teacher.

Hecks, I'm still on the fence on whether or not Salix existed.

 

[McBell]

I voted poll doesn't reflect my thoughts since I dont know

I did not vote because there is not an option I feel comfortable with voting for.

 

[Secret Chief]

I find debates on whether or not religious teachers such a Buddha, Krishna, Jesus, etc existed to be boring exercises in futility. Why does it matter?

The value, as I see it, is in the teachings themselves, not the teacher.

Hecks, I'm still on the fence on whether or not Salix existed.

There's the evidence of his preserved Speedos.

 

[LuisDantas]

Who knows? It is incredibly difficult to evidence the existence of any given person going back millennia ago.

Ultimately that does not matter a whole lot. It probably doesn't even to the segments of Buddhism with more of a supernatural bent.

Why? Because the question implicitly applies only to the historical existence of the person of Sidharta Gautama or some other person who might conceivably have inspired the early tales that we attribute to Gautama. And that is just not of any particular importance.

Buddha the person may or may not have existed, but the teachings are at worst barely affected by that uncertainty.

Nor does that uncertainty make a lot of impact on the validity of Buddhism's goals and methods; it may well make literally none.

Even the traditional triple refuge (Buddha, Dharma and Sangha) isn't much affected. When Buddhists talk about the Buddha, it isn't even all that often a reference to the historical person. "To take refuge in the Buddha" is hardly an action of travelling back in time in order to see Gautama. The Dharma is what it is. And the Sangha is quite demonstrably real.

 

[LuisDantas]

I find debates on whether or not religious teachers such a Buddha, Krishna, Jesus, etc existed to be boring exercises in futility. Why does it matter?

The value, as I see it, is in the teachings themselves, not the teacher.

Hecks, I'm still on the fence on whether or not Salix existed.

Indeed.

For some Christians, Muslims and perhaps Bahais that may make some difference, because there are those among those groups that literally hold high hopes for impressive changes and events strongly tied to the coming or return of specific promised people.

Always found that odd. But in any case, that is not representative of religion as a whole.

 

[Esteban X]

Surely whether The Buddha ( Siddhartha Gautama) existed is immaterial, since we are all Buddhas, in potentio. The teaching work, that's what matters

 

[Dawnofhope]

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.

Over the years I've dealt with religious fundamentalists who insist their religious texts be seen as literal historical truth despite all evidence to the contrary. It is hugely problematic for all sorts of reasons when individuals completely disregard reason and truth in regards how they view the world and those who are perceived as 'others'.

For me, being disinterested in what is truth is just as problematic as insisting something to be true despite all evidence to the contrary.

 

[SalixIncendium]

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.

Over the years I've dealt with religious fundamentalists who insist their religious texts be seen as literal historical truth despite all evidence to the contrary. It is hugely problematic for all sorts of reasons when individuals completely disregard reason and truth in regards how they view the world and those who are perceived as 'others'.

Being disinterested is what is truth is just as problematic as insisting something to be true despite all evidence to the contrary.

In all fairness, I think you're conflating "interest in truth" with "interest in proving the source of truth."

 

[LuisDantas]

It is not at all a matter of "truth" vs myth or fiction.

The religions exist and ought to not only be treated for what they are, but also for the responsibility that they are for their adherents, @Dawnofhope

Whether their historical founders existed as the literal persons tradition gives us is (nearly) always rather immaterial - and should be.

We don't know practically anything about the specific people that gave form to the languages that we use, but that does not make those languages any less real nor useful (nor subject to quagmires) either.

Edited to add: besides, it has long been observed that Buddhists can't even agree on a consensus of what a Buddha is. To the extent that we do, the most close to a consensus that we come to seems to be that it is a state of being.

Siddharta Gautama seems like a nice enough person, but I can hardly hold it against him if he turned out not have existed.

 

[McBell]

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.

Over the years I've dealt with religious fundamentalists who insist their religious texts be seen as literal historical truth despite all evidence to the contrary. It is hugely problematic for all sorts of reasons when individuals completely disregard reason and truth in regards how they view the world and those who are perceived as 'others'.

For me, being disinterested is what is truth is just as problematic as insisting something to be true despite all evidence to the contrary.

How do you propose going about how to determine if the Buddha was a real person?

 

[Twilight Hue]

There's the evidence of his preserved Speedos.

And his finger!

 

[Vinayaka]

I voted poll doesn't reflect my thoughts since I dont know

My precise sentiments, but I would also add 'I don't care'. Surely there are better things to do than to argue the existence of a historical figure. Doesn't your neighbour's lawn need cutting?

 

[sayak83]

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.

Over the years I've dealt with religious fundamentalists who insist their religious texts be seen as literal historical truth despite all evidence to the contrary. It is hugely problematic for all sorts of reasons when individuals completely disregard reason and truth in regards how they view the world and those who are perceived as 'others'.

For me, being disinterested is what is truth is just as problematic as insisting something to be true despite all evidence to the contrary.

What difference does existence of Euclid make in the soundness of his theorems, or the existence of Mozart on the timeless beauty of the compositions attributed to him? Science is also like that...the existence of Darwin is irrelevant to the soundness of the theory of evolution.
If a set of propositions or practices exist whose soundness can be tested here and now, it's not very clear why it's necessary to be bothered about when and who proposed it.

 

[Dawnofhope]

How do you propose going about how to determine if the Buddha was a real person?

The same way we research anyone in history we are interested in. We look at what is available to us in regard archaelogical and written records.

 

[Dawnofhope]

What difference does existence of Euclid make in the soundness of his theorems, or the existence of Mozart on the timeless beauty of the compositions attributed to him? Science is also like that...the existence of Darwin is irrelevant to the soundness of the theory of evolution.
If a set of propositions or practices exist whose soundness can be tested here and now, it's not very clear why it's necessary to be bothered about when and who proposed it.

The work of Euclid, Darwin and Mozart did not come out of a vaccum. For me there is value in knowing something about the biography and history. There is an historic context for each one, as there is for Buddha. Historic context seems particularly important for religious teachings. Understanding the life of a religious teacher is particularly useful as it gives context to the teachings.