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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Hey Engyo, glad you were the first to post.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 -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?
This generally corresponds with what I have been taught.Halcyon said: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?
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.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.
According to the Jain tradition, Jainism is much older than Buddhism and Mahvira was the 24th and last Tirthankara.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.
Hey Lil, thanks for posting.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.
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?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.
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.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.
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?Again, it is possible that all of this was fabricated but I think the simpler thing is to believe it to be so.
Anyone who attains a Buddha-consciousness is Buddha. (Not even a Buddhist, and I know that one. )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?
No. But then, if it were proven that there was no Jesus it wouldn't affect how I personally see the gospels either.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?
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?"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.
It's a fine theory. Where's your proof?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?
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.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.
My dog ate it.It's a fine theory. Where's your proof?
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.Buddha sits in heaven and is a friend so hope he is real, same as hope people here one day find reality.
There is far less evidence that Lao-Tse was a real person. Still, I refer to him as if he was.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.
Yes, I agree completely.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, are you referring to the historical Buddha or the cosmic Buddha?Buddha sits in heaven and is a friend so hope he is real, same as hope people here one day find reality.
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.The Buddha - man or myth?