The Mythical Buddha

[Halcyon]

In the wake of the "Mythical Christ" thread, i'm curious as to how people in general see the Buddha - hence the poll.

The Buddha - man or myth?

Personally i don't think it matters as i see the Dharma as having value with or without a single founder called Siddhartha.

 

[Engyo]

Anyone who thinks that the Buddha was anything other than a real man hasn't studied Buddhism in any detail. Beyond that, it will be interesting tosee what level of information is out there.

 

[Halcyon]

Anyone who thinks that the Buddha was anything other than a real man hasn't studied Buddhism in any detail. Beyond that, it will be interesting tosee what level of information is out there.

Hey Engyo, glad you were the first to post.

Since i don't really know what i'm looking for, would you mind pointing the way to a good website with strong evidence in favour of the Buddha as a historical figure? It would be very much appreciated.

I'd also love to hear your opinion on the links between Buddhism and Jainism, especially the 24 Buddhas and the 24 Tirthankars - apparently many have the same name?

 

[zenzero]

I killed someone on the way, was it Buddha?
whoever is interested has to check the body and make his own deduction.
Love & rgds

 

[Engyo]

Hey Engyo, glad you were the first to post.

Since i don't really know what i'm looking for, would you mind pointing the way to a good website with strong evidence in favour of the Buddha as a historical figure? It would be very much appreciated.

I'd also love to hear your opinion on the links between Buddhism and Jainism, especially the 24 Buddhas and the 24 Tirthankars - apparently many have the same name?

Halcyon -

Jainism predates Buddhism, and there are certain things in the Buddhist canon which are responses to Jainism. I am no expert on this; I am repeating things I have been told or have heard.

In regards to the Buddha as an historical figure, there are records from Alexander's expedition which mention the Buddha as having definitely existed - and Alexander went through the Pakistan-Northern India-Afghanistan region approximately 60 years after the Buddha's passing. Beyond that I am not sure what we could find that would absolutely define his existence........

 

[Halcyon]

I've read that the Pali scriptures, the oldest texts, were not compiled for some 200-300 years after the Buddha's death, and that Mahayana sutras were written sometimes as long as 1,000 years after his death. Is this true?

This generally corresponds with what I have been taught.

 

[lilithu]

In the wake of the "Mythical Christ" thread, i'm curious as to how people in general see the Buddha - hence the poll.

The Buddha - man or myth?

Personally i don't think it matters as i see the Dharma as having value with or without a single founder called Siddhartha.

Hmm... I don't know how to vote since I believe that the Buddha was a real man and I also believe that it's not important.

Siddhartha Gautama attained enlightenment, became the Buddha, and expounded for us the Dharma. Others may have done so before but if so, their message was lost in time. If Siddhartha had not become the Buddha, others likely would have afterwards and we would still have the Dharma. In that respect, I don't think that the historical Buddha is important.

BUT, I do believe that he really existed. I do believe that he really attained enlightenment. And I do believe that he really founded Buddhism. And I do believe that this was a feat so unusual in greatness (albeit possible by others) that I revere him.

As Engyo said, there are recorded conversations between the Buddha and the founder of Jainism, Mahavira, as well as between the Buddha and some of Mahavira's followers. The two religions arose at around the same time and their scriptures corroborate each other. (Tho of course, in Buddhist scripture the Buddha comes off looking better and in Jain scriptures Mahavira comes off the better.) It is possible that either or both men were invented and the conversations fabricated, but honestly I think Occam's razor would have us believe that they existed.

Also, the Buddha supposedly lived and preached for 45 years after his enlightenment and before his final death. In that time, he gathered a massive number of followers, including wealthy powerful people and started a Sangha (monastic community). Thus, unlike Jesus who died as a criminal after only 3 years of preaching and who's followers did not "get organized" until after his death, the Buddha left a well established, well documented religious tradition. Again, it is possible that all of this was fabricated but I think the simpler thing is to believe it to be so.

 

[lilithu]

Jainism predates Buddhism, and there are certain things in the Buddhist canon which are responses to Jainism. I am no expert on this; I am repeating things I have been told or have heard.

According to the Jain tradition, Jainism is much older than Buddhism and Mahvira was the 24th and last Tirthankara.

But as someone who is not a Jain believer, and looking at it from the outside, Jainism is not that much older than Buddhism. They were both responding to the vedic traditions that gave rise to what we now call Hinduism. Mahavira and the Buddha were alive at the same time, tho Mahavira was older. Siddhartha actually studied under him for a short while, after he left home and before he became an extreme ascetic. But according to Buddhist scripture, the student surpassed the master.

 

[Halcyon]

Hmm... I don't know how to vote since I believe that the Buddha was a real man and I also believe that it's not important.

Hey Lil, thanks for posting.
I deliberated about allowing multiple posts, but decided against it, wish i'd gone the other way now, oh well...

BUT, I do believe that he really existed. I do believe that he really attained enlightenment. And I do believe that he really founded Buddhism. And I do believe that this was a feat so unusual in greatness (albeit possible by others) that I revere him.

If, hypothetically, it was proven somehow that there was no historical Buddha and that Buddhism is based upon the collected wisdom of, say, a group of monks. Would that have any effect on how you personally see the Dharma?

It is possible that either or both men were invented and the conversations fabricated, but honestly I think Occam's razor would have us believe that they existed.

Personally, i'm in a place where i'm having trouble taking anything on faith anymore, with regards to ancient history anyway, so both possibilities seem equally likely to me. Having said that though, i do still see your logic.

Again, it is possible that all of this was fabricated but I think the simpler thing is to believe it to be so.

What do you think of the theory that there were several people calling themselves Buddha around at the period in time each with their own following, and that over the next few centuries several individual monastic groups conglomerated into a greater whole?

 

[Willamena]

What do you think of the theory that there were several people calling themselves Buddha around at the period in time each with their own following, and that over the next few centuries several individual monastic groups conglomerated into a greater whole?

Anyone who attains a Buddha-consciousness is Buddha. (Not even a Buddhist, and I know that one. )

 

[lilithu]

If, hypothetically, it was proven somehow that there was no historical Buddha and that Buddhism is based upon the collected wisdom of, say, a group of monks. Would that have any effect on how you personally see the Dharma?

No. But then, if it were proven that there was no Jesus it wouldn't affect how I personally see the gospels either.

Personally, i'm in a place where i'm having trouble taking anything on faith anymore, with regards to ancient history anyway, so both possibilities seem equally likely to me. Having said that though, i do still see your logic.

My primary concern is not, "is it true?" It used to be, but then I found it too difficult to ascertain and not necessarily useful. So my primary concern now is "does it work?"

Science has proven that the earth goes around the sun and not the other way around. Yet we still call it "sunrise" and "sunset" and frankly I would think a person a little unbalanced if he or she insisted on correcting me on this.

Even if it were proven that there was no historical Buddha and that Buddhism is based upon the collected wisdom, I would say "ok" and most likely still refer to the Buddha as the Buddha. And if someone insisted on correcting me, I would think the person has missed the point.

What do you think of the theory that there were several people calling themselves Buddha around at the period in time each with their own following, and that over the next few centuries several individual monastic groups conglomerated into a greater whole?

It's a fine theory. Where's your proof?

 

[Random]

I believe Gautama existed as a man roughly around the time period recorded (460BCE), but I also do not think his personal historicity matters: to believe he never existed and therefore dismiss his teachings would be folly and a tremendous waste of one of the most profound minds and hearts humanity ever gave rise to.

Same applies to Jesus, Zoroaster, The Seikh Guru or whomever you choose to abnegate the history of: their long-term impact has been beyond their mortal capacities in life and their symbolic and representative value so great that no man who did exist could purchase it.

 

[fantome profane]

I think there is a problem with definition. “The Buddha” is the person who obtained enlightenment and gave the world the “Four Noble Truths” and the “Eight Fold Path”. It is believed that this person was Siddhartha Gautama. Did Siddhartha Gautama really exist? And was he really the Buddha? I believe that he did and he was, but I can’t say that I am really certain of that. But I can say that I am certain that “The Buddha” did really exist. We have the Four Noble Truths, and I consider that proof positive that the Buddha must have existed.

Consider this analogy. Think about William Shakespeare (you know, the guy who wrote Hamlet). Did William Shakespeare (the guy who wrote Hamlet) really exist? Well there are some people who actually believe that Hamlet was not really written by William Shakespeare. Let’s take that a step further; let us consider that William Shakespeare never existed at all. We could say that if we wanted to. But we could not say that “the guy who wrote Hamlet” never existed. You have probably read Hamlet, or seen a play of a movie of Hamlet, so you know that someone must have written it. The guy who wrote Hamlet must have existed, there can be no debate about that.

The Buddha (the guy who gave us the Four Noble Truths) must have existed, there can be no debate about that. It might not have been Siddhartha Gautama, who may or may not have existed. So although I do believe Siddhartha Gautama really existed and was the Buddha, I had to vote “I don’t know/I don’t think it is important”.

 

[Halcyon]

My primary concern is not, "is it true?" It used to be, but then I found it too difficult to ascertain and not necessarily useful. So my primary concern now is "does it work?"

Science has proven that the earth goes around the sun and not the other way around. Yet we still call it "sunrise" and "sunset" and frankly I would think a person a little unbalanced if he or she insisted on correcting me on this.

Even if it were proven that there was no historical Buddha and that Buddhism is based upon the collected wisdom, I would say "ok" and most likely still refer to the Buddha as the Buddha. And if someone insisted on correcting me, I would think the person has missed the point.

I agree 100% with this, while i remain agnostic with regards to the Buddha's existence, i feel the Dharma is what is really important anyway.

It's a fine theory. Where's your proof?

My dog ate it.

Seriously though, these debates are pretty pointless in a way. We can't prove or disprove the historical existence of Buddha any more than we can Heracles or Lao Tzu, we can only have (or lack) faith in the written evidence people have given us.

I do find it interesting that no one has voted for the mythological option in the poll though, as there are people out there who do believe he was just myth.
I would have expected a couple of the people on the forum who firmly believe Jesus is a myth to have voted myth here too, i think it gives a little insight into how their minds work...

 

[wizanda]

Buddha sits in heaven and is a friend so hope he is real, same as hope people here one day find reality.

 

[Halcyon]

Buddha sits in heaven and is a friend so hope he is real, same as hope people here one day find reality.

I disagree Wiz, the whole point is that Buddha "extinguished" himself, there is no Buddha to sit in heaven, or anywhere else - so far as i understand it.

 

[wizanda]

Have you been to heaven yet? or its real name Oneness? Did you live there or were you born there? Buddha excepted he was…
So then, if not, why do you question someone who was born there?
Like was saying would love people to find reality, yet as the fire could be due any time, why i say hope for you all down here still.


p.s late addition, you are think heaven is something it is not and quite clearly far from Buddha own understandings, nothing personal, i blame the western fake Pharisee religious dogmatic churches, forcing religion on everyone when it should be God and love first, as Christ did say.
Heaven is made of Wisdom and unconditional love, so if you notice they don't differ from what Buddha said.

 

[lilithu]

Seriously though, these debates are pretty pointless in a way. We can't prove or disprove the historical existence of Buddha any more than we can Heracles or Lao Tzu, we can only have (or lack) faith in the written evidence people have given us.

There is far less evidence that Lao-Tse was a real person. Still, I refer to him as if he was.

I do find it interesting that no one has voted for the mythological option in the poll though, as there are people out there who do believe he was just myth.
I would have expected a couple of the people on the forum who firmly believe Jesus is a myth to have voted myth here too, i think it gives a little insight into how their minds work...

Yes, I agree completely.

It seems that many people do not put Buddhism (or any other Eastern religion for that matter) under the same hostile scrutiny as they do Christianity. This double-standard annoys me sometimes, but then I have to remember that many are dealing with pain from Christianity that they did not experience from Buddhism.

Tho maybe the people of whom you're thinking just haven't seen the poll yet.

 

[lilithu]

Buddha sits in heaven and is a friend so hope he is real, same as hope people here one day find reality.

wizanda, are you referring to the historical Buddha or the cosmic Buddha?

 

[Willamena]

The Buddha - man or myth?

It may be unnecessary to answer this question in the scholarly context of the word "myth," but it's my favourite context, so I will.

Myth can lead us to Buddha consciousness, transcendence of being. The imagry of myth creates 'Buddha' for the individual through realization. Buddha is without 'self' because in attaining Buddha consciousness self becomes one with the bigger picture of reality.

That's my understanding of it, though it may be incorrect.