Since this comes up often about Jesus- Did Lord Buddha exist?

[Willamena]

How so?

You can be a humanist and an idealist.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I think most people take the virgin birth of Lord Gautama to be a myth s-word. That being said, for Pure Land Buddhists anyway, it is believed that Lord Gautama was a special man who came from the gods to show humanity the way to liberation from suffering, yes.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I remember being taught in school that he was some prince, who saw a homeless man on the street and decided to be on equal terms with the poor man and started to starve himself. Then while he was starving he had a vision. Though I totally could be wrong and I'm sorry if that sound insensitive it is the only way I can put it in my own words.

Thesavor it actually goes that Prince Siddartha was raised in a palace with all the comforts and luxuries he could want, because his father wanted him to be a prince, rather then renounce the world and become an ascetic like a sage predicted he would at birth. Lord Buddha went outside the palace on seperate occassions with his charioteer Chanda. He saw situations outside the palace that disturbed him, because he'd never seen them before, having lived such a sheltered life. He saw old age, death, illness, and asceticism that the Brahmins practiced. He was moved by the suffering, because he had always been a very compassionate person. He vowed that he would not stop being an ascetic until he discovered a way to free everyone from suffering. It is because I have a lot of respect for this kind prince who loved the world that I call him Lord Buddha.

 

[LuisDantas]

You can be a humanist and an idealist.

And IMO it is a natural combination, too.

 

[Thesavorofpan]

Thesavor it actually goes that Prince Siddartha was raised in a palace with all the comforts and luxuries he could want, because his father wanted him to be a prince, rather then renounce the world and become an ascetic like a sage predicted he would at birth. Lord Buddha went outside the palace on seperate occassions with his charioteer Chanda. He saw situations outside the palace that disturbed him, because he'd never seen them before, having lived such a sheltered life. He saw old age, death, illness, and asceticism that the Brahmins practiced. He was moved by the suffering, because he had always been a very compassionate person. He vowed that he would not stop being an ascetic until he discovered a way to free everyone from suffering. It is because I have a lot of respect for this kind prince who loved the world that I call him Lord Buddha.

Thanks for clearing it up for me.

 

[S-word]

I think most people take the virgin birth of Lord Gautama to be a myth s-word. That being said, for Pure Land Buddhists anyway, it is believed that Lord Gautama was a special man who came from the gods to show humanity the way to liberation from suffering, yes.

As is the myth that the man Jesus was born of a virgin.

 

[Alien]

If he did exist? I really don't know. I don't think it really matters either.

Maybe i'm missing something but you listed your self as Buddhist right next to your avatar. Shouldn't someone who is buddhist think Buddah matters?

 

[LuisDantas]

Maybe i'm missing something but you listed your self as Buddhist right next to your avatar. Shouldn't someone who is buddhist think Buddah matters?

Sure. But as a literal person? Hardly important at all. Maybe if I lived at those times.

 

[fantome profane]

I see two separate different questions here. First “Did a man named Siddhartha Gautama ever truly exist?” and the second question is “Did the Buddha exist?” These two questions are not the same question and could conceivably have different answers.

My answer to both questions happens to be yes, but to the first question “Did Siddhartha Gautama” exist? My answer is that it is more likely that he did exist than it is that he did not exist. But I am far from certain. There is some historical evidence for the existence of a man named “Siddhartha Gautama” but it is not very strong. (My answer to the Jesus question is about the same, if anything I would say the historical evidence for Jesus is slightly stronger, but I am still not completely certain).

On the other hand if the question is “Did the Buddha exist?” my answer is yes and I am 100% certain of this. And I consider myself to be a skeptic, I am not even 100% sure that I exist, so how can I say I am 100% sure the Buddha existed? How can anyone be 100% certain of anything? Let me explain with an analogy.

Let’s ask the question “Did William Shakespeare exist?” Now Shakespeare is a much more recent historical figure and has much more historical evidence for his existence, but let’s ignore that for now. There are in fact those who have argued that some of all of the plays and poems attributed to Shakespeare were not really written by him. So lets consider the idea that Shakespeare was not the person who wrote Hamlet. Now lets consider the idea that Shakespeare did not exist. This is fine so far, these things are possible. But now lets consider the idea that the persons who wrote Hamlet never existed, that is absolutely impossible. We can be absolutely 100% certain that the person who wrote Hamlet existed, whoever that was. Why? Because we have Hamlet, we have read it or seen the play/movie. Somebody must have written it, the person who wrote Hamlet must have existed.

Likewise we have the four noble truths and the eightfold path, the person who “wrote” these must have existed. Therefore the “Buddha” must have existed.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I figured my putting Lord Buddha in the title would convey the obvious, since the only person most Buddhists call Lord Buddha is Gautama. Guess I was wrong...

 

[LuisDantas]

Not really, Senedjem. Quite a few people don't really mean Gautama when they speak of Buddha. There are for instance those who mean Amida Buddha (which you already know) and even a fair many who somehow call Nichiren "the Original Buddha". Don't expect me to explain that, I don't understand it myself...

 

[zenzero]

Friend Senedjem,

Though there is nothing wrong in your assessment because the whole of humanity had been doing the same thing of taking Gautama to be the BUDDHA. Absolutely fine.
It is only a question of understanding of raising one's consciousness to the level that one is conscious of the words used as here we are trying to convey the no-mind in words and human perceptions are usually from the mind.
Since *Buddha* only means an *awakened one* which means that you and me too are all potential buddhas and similarly even Jesus was not only Christ but a Buddha too besides all those who have been enlightened are all buddhas.
When the matter is concerned with a particular buddha then consciously we should point our pointers towards that particular buddha labelled *Gautama, so that the readers are able to perceive clearly about the reference point of the question.

Love & rgds

 

[fantome profane]

I figured my putting Lord Buddha in the title would convey the obvious, since the only person most Buddhists call Lord Buddha is Gautama. Guess I was wrong...

I think you missed my point. I wasn’t criticizing your op or your poll, I was trying to introduce a different way of looking at it. I am not talking about “a Buddha”, but “The Buddha”, “The Lord Buddha” as you put it. Although others have made valid points about other Buddhas, that is not what I am talking about. “The Buddha” is the person who gave us the four noble truths. We can be certain that the person who gave us the four noble truths existed because we have the four noble truths. Therefore we can be certain that the Buddha existed.

The Buddha is believed to have been Siddhartha Gautama, I believe The Buddha was Siddhartha Gautama (more likely than not). But the point I am trying to make is that The Buddha is not defined as Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha is defined as the person who gave us the four noble truths.

 

[Engyo]

The Buddha is believed to have been Siddhartha Gautama, I believe The Buddha was Siddhartha Gautama (more likely than not). But the point I am trying to make is that The Buddha is not defined as Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha is defined as the person who gave us the four noble truths.

Yes - the person who first turned the Wheel of the Dharma in this age in this world is accorded the title of Buddha (capital B). People argue about what is the definition of "age", or "this world", but that is the basis of the title.

 

[Shishya]

Siddhartha Gautama was a Sakya Kshatriya (Kshatriyas of Brahmin lineage) from Nepal(then part of Great India). There are heavy historical evidences for his existence.

 

[Shishya]

As in the case of Jesus, I'm convinced he was an actual person, and also as in the case of Jesus, a substantial non-historical mythology has been built up around him.

I voted yes and I think I agree with Smoke's assessment of the situation.

Although we would likely disagree on the details of what is mythological...

And what evidences do you have?

Buddha had to exist but forget the religion, and the myths surrounding Buddha. I would say he had to exist because the original Pali Literature is scientific in thought, too many centuries ahead of its time. The west didn't produce such thinkers until the likes of David Humes, John Locke, or Rene DeCartes put thoughts to paper. It was a departure from Buddhist thought that became popular in eastern Asia as the Buddhist philosophy was adopted by its cultures, and changed radically from its original course.

Just because a literature is highly scientific doesnt necessarily mean that the person it is being attributed to existed.

Maybe the Buddha and Jesus are the same person.

Are there any history scholars that doubt Siddhartha Gautama actually existed?

I second this question.

Thesavor it actually goes that Prince Siddartha was raised in a palace with all the comforts and luxuries he could want, because his father wanted him to be a prince, rather then renounce the world and become an ascetic like a sage predicted he would at birth. Lord Buddha went outside the palace on seperate occassions with his charioteer Chanda. He saw situations outside the palace that disturbed him, because he'd never seen them before, having lived such a sheltered life. He saw old age, death, illness, and asceticism that the Brahmins practiced. He was moved by the suffering, because he had always been a very compassionate person. He vowed that he would not stop being an ascetic until he discovered a way to free everyone from suffering. It is because I have a lot of respect for this kind prince who loved the world that I call him Lord Buddha.

I share your sentiments.

I see two separate different questions here. First “Did a man named Siddhartha Gautama ever truly exist?” and the second question is “Did the Buddha exist?” These two questions are not the same question and could conceivably have different answers.

My answer to both questions happens to be yes, but to the first question “Did Siddhartha Gautama” exist? My answer is that it is more likely that he did exist than it is that he did not exist. But I am far from certain. There is some historical evidence for the existence of a man named “Siddhartha Gautama” but it is not very strong. (My answer to the Jesus question is about the same, if anything I would say the historical evidence for Jesus is slightly stronger, but I am still not completely certain).

:sarcastic

On the other hand if the question is “Did the Buddha exist?” my answer is yes and I am 100% certain of this. And I consider myself to be a skeptic, I am not even 100% sure that I exist, so how can I say I am 100% sure the Buddha existed? How can anyone be 100% certain of anything? Let me explain with an analogy.

Let’s ask the question “Did William Shakespeare exist?” Now Shakespeare is a much more recent historical figure and has much more historical evidence for his existence, but let’s ignore that for now. There are in fact those who have argued that some of all of the plays and poems attributed to Shakespeare were not really written by him. So lets consider the idea that Shakespeare was not the person who wrote Hamlet. Now lets consider the idea that Shakespeare did not exist. This is fine so far, these things are possible. But now lets consider the idea that the persons who wrote Hamlet never existed, that is absolutely impossible. We can be absolutely 100% certain that the person who wrote Hamlet existed, whoever that was. Why? Because we have Hamlet, we have read it or seen the play/movie. Somebody must have written it, the person who wrote Hamlet must have existed.

Likewise we have the four noble truths and the eightfold path, the person who “wrote” these must have existed. Therefore the “Buddha” must have existed.

I figured my putting Lord Buddha in the title would convey the obvious, since the only person most Buddhists call Lord Buddha is Gautama. Guess I was wrong...

We Hindus also have great reverence for Buddha and call him affectionately as Lord. Some to the extent that they think he is an incarnate of the Divine.

A sentiment that I do not carry and consider to be preposterous.

I see no reason to honour him as a God. His life and the impact it has made would be appreciated more if he seen as having been as just a human.

Friend Senedjem,

Though there is nothing wrong in your assessment because the whole of humanity had been doing the same thing of taking Gautama to be the BUDDHA. Absolutely fine.

It is only a question of understanding of raising one's consciousness to the level that one is conscious of the words used as here we are trying to convey the no-mind in words and human perceptions are usually from the mind.
Since *Buddha* only means an *awakened one* which means that you and me too are all potential buddhas and similarly even Jesus was not only Christ but a Buddha too besides all those who have been enlightened are all buddhas.

When the matter is concerned with a particular buddha then consciously we should point our pointers towards that particular buddha labelled *Gautama, so that the readers are able to perceive clearly about the reference point of the question.

Love & rgds

Please support the existence for "Jesus" with evidence.

And considering who Jesus is as implied by the bible. I would vehemently disagree with the "Jesus" figure being a "Buddha".

Since Jesus is supposed to be a God incarnate who stauncly preached about God whereas the Buddha was the opposite.

I see your attempt to consider "Jesus" as a Buddha as a means of elevating his reputation.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I agree with Zenzero that Jesus was probably a Buddha. Especially Jesus as the Gnostic gospels put forth. Ever read the Gospel of Thomas? I think Christ is another word for Buddha, since I view Christ as another name for that mystic consciousness the Hindu calls Brahman.

 

[xkatz]

I agree with Zenzero that Jesus was probably a Buddha.

As long as we're on this topic, was Jesus perhaps the Maitreya Buddha?

 

[dogsgod]

Just because a literature is highly scientific doesnt necessarily mean that the person it is being attributed to existed.

You miss the point. Whomever wrote the Pali Literature is considered the Buddha. We may not know anything about the person but the writings themselves were written by someone ahead of their time, that person we call Buddha. The case for Jesus is different, we just have a story of someone that may or may not have existed.

 

[Oberon]

Buddha had to exist

Just when I thought I had heard it all. "On the basis of diverse sources, scholarly estimates of the years of the Buddha's birth and death vary by more than a century."
Professor Noble Ross Reat Buddhism. Yet you have trouble with a historical jesus?

I would say he had to exist because the original Pali Literature is scientific in thought

The Pali suttas are filled with myth and legend. I thought you discounted all such sources. And all sources are further removed from the Buddha than the early christian sources. I would think you could at least be consistent in your dogmatic mythicism.