Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

barryevans wrote:Thanks everyone for your responses, much appreciated. I meant no offense asking the question—I think some responders may have thought I did.

I guess I thought I'd just have to google, "Historical Buddha" and the information would jump out at me! But even his birth-death dates, for instance, is all over the place. Kim says, “the Buddha lived c. 480 - 400 BCE according to recent (sound, historical) research.” (can you pls. reference, Kim?). On the other hand, “In Sri Lanka, 483 BC is accepted as the date of his nirvana while in Burma 544 BC is accepted. In Tibet it is believed to be 835 BC, while in China, 11th century BC is the accepted date. Buddha was an Indian and the Indian Puranic tradition believes that the nirvana took place in 1793 or 1807 BC.” (Bharateeya Historiography, http://www.hindubooks.org/hist_ssathe/b ... /page4.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

Kim writes, “You compare Buddhism to 'every other religion [you] know about' but I doubt that those include Taoism, Hinduism or Mithraism...Can you cite contemporary written evidence of their origin?” I think it’s pretty well accepted that at least some of the Vedas are Bronze Age, 1000 BCE at least (and we certainly have very old statuary). Mitra (one of the members of Zoroaster’s trinity) is mentioned 1400 BCE in the extant Mitanni treaty. Don’t know much about Taoism—Wikipedia sez, “Laozi received imperial recognition as a divinity in the mid second century B.C.E.”

I was hoping for something more concrete about historical Buddha. Any takers?

gassho, barry

barryevans wrote: ...

I guess I thought I'd just have to google, "Historical Buddha" and the information would jump out at me! But even his birth-death dates, for instance, is all over the place. ...

I was hoping for something more concrete about historical Buddha. Any takers?

Paññāsikhara wrote:If you're serious about the question, then Google, and asking random people on the internet, is not the method to use. Get some actual books and other source materials by qualified scholars of Buddhism. There is plenty out there if you really want to know answers to questions like this. Try Warder's History of Indian Buddhism, and likewise by both Nakamura and also Hirakawa, too. Here is a fairly good overview of the methodologies of working out dates for the buddha - http://www.buddhistethics.org/15/prebish-article.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings bhante,

Paññāsikhara wrote:If you're serious about the question, then Google, and asking random people on the internet, is not the method to use. Get some actual books and other source materials by qualified scholars of Buddhism. There is plenty out there if you really want to know answers to questions like this. Try Warder's History of Indian Buddhism, and likewise by both Nakamura and also Hirakawa, too. Here is a fairly good overview of the methodologies of working out dates for the buddha - http://www.buddhistethics.org/15/prebish-article.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ah, but he'd never have gotten that useful answer but for "asking random people on the internet"

Metta,
Retro.

PeterB wrote:I would suggest that the best evidence is the Suttas. If the historical Buddha did not exist, whose thoughts are they ?
Clearly they are the thoughts of an Enlightened One, unless you can explain the origin of the doctrine of Dependant Origination, or show it occuring elsewhere other than in the Suttas.
So you are left with the problem of explaining this other unknown Enlightened One who is not the Buddha...

barryevans wrote:But I am very curious why it's so hard to find answers to the question of origins.

barryevans wrote:Thanks again everyone for the responses. Again, I'm surprised at some of the comments (I'm new to this forum) saying, in essence, "Don't ask questions!" This is headed as a discussion forum, hence my surprise.

barryevans wrote:Thanks again everyone for the responses. Again, I'm surprised at some of the comments (I'm new to this forum) saying, in essence, "Don't ask questions!" This is headed as a discussion forum, hence my surprise.

mikenz66 wrote:Hi Barry,

barryevans wrote:Thanks again everyone for the responses. Again, I'm surprised at some of the comments (I'm new to this forum) saying, in essence, "Don't ask questions!" This is headed as a discussion forum, hence my surprise.

I'm not sure that they are saying that exactly. It seems obvious that there is no absolutely foolproof documentation that the Buddha existed, so the problem is what level of "proof" do you want, and what use is it going to be. As scholars like Richard Gombrich say, it seems highly likely that the ideas in the Canon spring from a single person, but it is not provable.

I think one thing that people are objecting to is your assumption that artefacts are more important and interesting than the orally-transmitted discourses. I'm much more impressed the consistency of ideas in the various versions of the discourses transmitted in different geographical regions, than a few rocks.

Mike