Why did you choose Theravada?

[pink_trike]

if it really didn't matter to you you wouldn't say it!

Wrong.

I could care less if there was ever an actual living "The Buddha". I'm interested in the practices and testing the teachings. Nothing more.

so your making claims that the buddha didn't exist based on what practice?

No, I didn't offer any opinion about whether the Buddha ever existed or not.

I said that scholars aren't able to find sufficient evidence to support such a claim and are increasingly less willing to accept "facts" put forth by institutional Buddhism regarding the Buddha's existence.

I didn't say that there was any practices that supported the opinion of scholars. I said that it is irrelevant to me whether the Buddha actually lived or not...my interest is only in the practices and testing the teachings.

[tiltbillings]

Increasingly, scholars are unable to find any solid evidence of it...evidence that should be available if he actually lived and wasn't just a conceptual devise.

Back up your claim.

Too busy right now, and its irrelevant to me whether he lived or not. If it matters to you, do the research (outside of institutional Buddhism).

Well, so much for your claim. Nothing here to take seriously, then, it would seem.

[pink_trike]

Well, so much for your claim. Nothing here to take seriously, then, it would seem.

Again, I'll point out that it wasn't my claim...I didn't state an opinion either way.

Tilt, have you noticed that people claim on this board all time that there was an actual living Buddha? Likely you don't even give it a thought when they do - you, like most of them, read in buddhist books that he existed - no further verification needed. I've never heard you demand "Back up your claim" to any of them. So why the big fluff about a claim (not mine) that he may not have existed?

I realize that if you have a lot of emotion invested in the idea of a Buddha that actually lived that a suggestion by scholars that he may be a conceptual devise might be uncomfortable, but to me its pretty insignificant and not worth a mad dash to the bookshelves just to comfort you.

[tiltbillings]

Well, so much for your claim. Nothing here to take seriously, then, it would seem.

Again, I'll point out that it wasn't my claim...I didn't state an opinion either way. Tilt, have you noticed that people claim on this board all time that there was an actual living Buddha? I've never heard you demand "Back up your claim" to any of them. I realize that if you have a lot of emotion invested in the idea of a Buddha that actually lived that a suggestion by scholars that he may be a conceptual devise might be uncomfortable, but to me its pretty insignificant and not worth a mad dash to the bookshelves just to comfort you.

I do not need comfort. You are the one who made claim about what "Sanskrit" scholars say, and you are the one when asked, who refused to back it up, making your claim meaningless.

Just to be clear about what was said:

Increasingly, scholars are unable to find any solid evidence of it [emphasis added]...evidence that should be available if he actually lived and wasn't just a conceptual devise.

Back up your claim.

[pink_trike]

I do not need comfort. You are the one who made claim about what "Sanskrit" scholars say, and you are the one when asked, who refused to back it up, making your claim meaningless.

Just to be clear about what was said:

Increasingly, scholars are unable to find any solid evidence of it [emphasis added]...evidence that should be available if he actually lived and wasn't just a conceptual devise.

Back up your claim.

Too busy right now, and its irrelevant to me whether he lived or not.If it matters to you, do the research (outside of institutional Buddhism).

emphasis added...

I find it hard to believe that you're not aware of this ongoing debate between secular scholars and the Buddhist institution.

[tiltbillings]

Too busy right now, and its irrelevant to me whether he lived or not. If it matters to you, do the research (outside of institutional Buddhism).

emphasis added...

And, again, you do not address the question raised by me, which was not that the Buddha lived or not, but what "Sanskrit" scholars supposedly, accordinmg to you, said about it. Your refusal renders your claim meaningless.

[tiltbillings]

I find it hard to believe that you're not aware that this debate between secular scholars and the Buddhist institution exists.

I am well aware of recent scholarship says, which is why I am asking you to back up your claim that

Increasingly, scholars are unable to find any solid evidence of it...evidence that should be available if he actually lived and wasn't just a conceptual devise.

[Cittasanto]

No, I didn't offer any opinion about whether the Buddha ever existed or not.

I said that scholars aren't able to find sufficient evidence to support such a claim and are increasingly less willing to accept "facts" put forth by institutional Buddhism regarding the Buddha's existence.

I didn't say that there was any practices that supported the opinion of scholars. I said that it is irrelevant to me whether the Buddha actually lived or not...my interest is only in the practices and testing the teachings.

that is an opinion you shared, so where is your evidence for that?

if you share something it is you who backs it up, no one else, or I could easily say that Leonardo DaVinci, Alexander G. Bell, or Vlad Tepish never lived and are steriotypes of X. Y. & Z. or myths spread for A. B. & C. reason due to evidence I know but you need to go look for!

if it didn't matter why share it? you are the one who said

I'm interested in the practices and testing the teachings. Nothing more.

if it truly was nothing more then why bring up unsupported claims unrelated to the practice?

[pink_trike]

I find it hard to believe that you're not aware that this debate between secular scholars and the Buddhist institution exists.

I am well aware of recent scholarship says, which is why I am asking you to back up your claim that

Increasingly, scholars are unable to find any solid evidence of it...evidence that should be available if he actually lived and wasn't just a conceptual devise.

Since you are "well aware" of this ongoing debate (and I know that you are), then you proved my point and there is no need for me to back up my "claim" that there is a secular scholarly opinion that is skeptical of a buddha that actually lived.

Separately, I'm not interested in debating whether there was or wasn't an actual Buddha, because I really (really, really) don't care if there was or not.

Sheesh, really, guys...my saying that secular scholars are having a hard time finding your Buddha shouldn't be such a touchy subject.

[tiltbillings]

I find it hard to believe that you're not aware that this debate between secular scholars and the Buddhist institution exists.

I am well aware of recent scholarship says, which is why I am asking you to back up your claim that

Increasingly, scholars are unable to find any solid evidence of it...evidence that should be available if he actually lived and wasn't just a conceptual devise.

Since you are "well aware" of this ongoing debate (and I know that you are), then you proved my point and there is no need for me to back up my "claim" that there is a secular scholarly opinion that is skeptical of a buddha that actually lived.

Separately, I'm not interested in debating whether there was or wasn't an actual Buddha.

I proved your point? Nice try, but not really the case. You made a claim, refused to back it up when asked and now you are stating I proved your point, but you still do not back up your claim that I proved your point or that

Increasingly, scholars are unable to find any solid evidence of it...evidence that should be available if he actually lived and wasn't just a conceptual devise.

So far your claims are meaningless.

Separately, I'm not interested in debating whether there was or wasn't an actual Buddha, because I really (really, really) don't care if there was or not.

I am not asking you to debate whether there was an actual Buddha. I am asking you to back up your claim about "Sanskrit" scholars, which you are refusing to do, making your claim meaningless.

[pink_trike]

I proved your point? Nice try, but not really the case. You made a claim, refused to back it up when asked and now you are stating I proved your point, but you still do not back up your claim that I proved your point or that

Increasingly, scholars are unable to find any solid evidence of it...evidence that should be available if he actually lived and wasn't just a conceptual devise.

So far your claims are meaningless.

Separately, I'm not interested in debating whether there was or wasn't an actual Buddha, because I really (really, really) don't care if there was or not.

I am not asking you to debate whether there was an actual Buddha. I am asking you to back up your claim about "Sanskrit" scholars, which you are refusing to do, making your claim meaningless.

What part of "I'm too busy" and "I'm not interested" don't you understand?

Yes, yes...I know, saying this just proves that my claim is baseless.

[tiltbillings]

]

What part of "I'm too busy" and "I'm not interested" don't you understand?

Yes, yes...I know, saying this just proves that my claim is baseless.

It is cheap talk to make such claims and then being "unwilling" - unable - to back them up. You are correct, your claims are baseless.

[Tex]

Might this topic of the historical Buddha's existence be worth splitting off from the main topic, since both topics are worth continuing? Just a thought.

I'm not surprised to hear that there is debate over whether or not Gotama was a real person -- philosophers have speculated for ages that Socrates was not a real person, but rather a literary device employed by Plato in his dialogues. Since both Socrates and Gotama lived around 2500 years ago, and almost no one from 2500 years ago can be "proven" to have existed, I guess it makes sense.

Anyway, though I'm not surprised to learn of this debate, I must confess to knowing nothing about Sanskrit historical scholarship. And googling "Did Buddha exist" turns up a ridiculous amount of hits, most of which have nothing to do with the question, so if anyone can point me to some links dealing with this I'd be very curious to read more and would appreciate the guidance in advance.

[tiltbillings]

so if anyone can point me to some links dealing with this I'd be very curious to read more and would appreciate the guidance in advance.

Let us see what pink-trike can give us on this.

[pink_trike]

]

What part of "I'm too busy" and "I'm not interested" don't you understand?

Yes, yes...I know, saying this just proves that my claim is baseless.

It is cheap talk to make such claims and then being "unwilling" - unable - to back them up. You are correct, your claims are baseless.

I have two turkeys in ovens, and am making a couple of pies. Shortly a whole bunch of friends and family who also don't care if there was a living buddha or not are going to start ringing the doorbell. Sorry if that's inconvenient for you...I understand you're in a big hurry, but that's hardly justification for calling my so-called claim "cheap" and saying I'm "unwilling". Get a grip...I have a life and that one line "claim" doesn't justify your reactive froth or the urgency you're bringing to this imaginary issue. Isn't right about now when you slam the topic shut?

Have a great holiday!