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 no wiser after all this, I'm afraid. David, I do think comparing the wild (hundreds of years) tradition of Buddha's birth date with that of Jesus (born between 7 BCE and 6 CE, I think all scholars agree) and Muhammed (570 CE) is a bit of a stretch.
Dhamma (Pali), Dharma (Sanskrit)--are interchangeable, no?
Let's see--cherrypicking Asoka's edicts? Have you actually read them all? It's just that the two that specifically mention the Buddha are totally different in style from the others. It's really very obvious when you read them, I'm not trying to convince anyone, the edicts speak for themselves.
I don't have any investment in whether there was a historic Buddha, I'll go on doing my practice just the same. But I am very curious why it's so hard to find answers to the question of origins.
Historicity of the Buddha
Re: Historicity of the Buddha
Ancient India was not concerned with keeping record of historical chronological time lines as much as keeping record of the actual events themselves.barryevans wrote:But I am very curious why it's so hard to find answers to the question of origins.
Liberation is the inevitable fruit of the path and is bound to blossom forth when there is steady and persistent practice. The only requirements for reaching the final goal are two: to start and to continue. If these requirements are met there is no doubt the goal will be attained. This is the Dhamma, the undeviating law.
- BB
- BB
- Goofaholix
- Posts: 4017
- Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
- Location: New Zealand
Re: Historicity of the Buddha
Why do you need to know?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.
Do you know who invented the wheel? can you pinpoint it's historicity?
I suspect the answer is no yet I'm sure it doesn't diminish your ability to drive a car or bicycle.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
Re: Historicity of the Buddha
Hi Barry,
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
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.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 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
Re: Historicity of the Buddha
Can't really say it any better than this.mikenz66 wrote:Hi Barry,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.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 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
That is what many are trying to convey to you, Barry - that definite proof of the Buddha's existence is not necessary to practice. So, many of us do not dwell on it. You said it seems people are saying "don't ask questions", but most have simply conveyed that they do not need that answer.
Just out of curiousity, what are your personal reasons for needing to know this information?
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
Re: Historicity of the Buddha
Hello barry, all,
The Buddha always told people not to take his word, not to just believe because learned teachers taught something ~ he said "ehipassiko" ~
Ehipassiko
Ehipassiko constitutes an open invitation to all to come and see, to inspect, to scrutinize and if need be, even to criticize the Dhamma before accepting it because there is nothing mythical or mysterious about it.
The Dhamma is pure and crystal clear. It is as pure as solid gold. The Buddha Himself declared: "Do not accept what I say through mere respect towards me. Just as purity of gold is ascertained by melting or rubbing on a touchstone, likewise the Dhamma should be accepted only after very close scrutiny." This fearless assertion of allowing the teaching to be closely examined marks the greatness of the Buddha and the unwavering truth of the sublime Dhamma.
http://www.purifymind.com/Introduction.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
with metta
Chris
The Buddha always told people not to take his word, not to just believe because learned teachers taught something ~ he said "ehipassiko" ~
Ehipassiko
Ehipassiko constitutes an open invitation to all to come and see, to inspect, to scrutinize and if need be, even to criticize the Dhamma before accepting it because there is nothing mythical or mysterious about it.
The Dhamma is pure and crystal clear. It is as pure as solid gold. The Buddha Himself declared: "Do not accept what I say through mere respect towards me. Just as purity of gold is ascertained by melting or rubbing on a touchstone, likewise the Dhamma should be accepted only after very close scrutiny." This fearless assertion of allowing the teaching to be closely examined marks the greatness of the Buddha and the unwavering truth of the sublime Dhamma.
http://www.purifymind.com/Introduction.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
Re: Historicity of the Buddha
For me, I think it is interesting to find out what actually happened historically. Whether the Buddha existed or not doesn't really matter in terms of practice, but it is still interesting to know, or attempt to find out what happened in the past. I am just as interested to find out if Christ existed, or the circumstances surrounding his life. It is just a matter of history.SDC wrote:Can't really say it any better than this.mikenz66 wrote:Hi Barry,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.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 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
That is what many are trying to convey to you, Barry - that definite proof of the Buddha's existence is not necessary to practice. So, many of us do not dwell on it. You said it seems people are saying "don't ask questions", but most have simply conveyed that they do not need that answer.
Just out of curiousity, what are your personal reasons for needing to know this information?
-----------------------
Bankei
Bankei
- jcsuperstar
- Posts: 1915
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:15 am
- Location: alaska
- Contact:
Re: Historicity of the Buddha
it is a fact that some person lived at some time in history that said or wrote the things we now have as buddhism if there was not we would not have those things, therefor there has to be a person whose these thoughts belonged to, right? there's your buddha.
now, we can look at history to try to pinpoint a time when that person lived, and it seems the consensus is around 2600 years ago. what else exactly would you want?
there are people alive today who do not even know what year they were born in ,let alone the day or month, they are just told, "oh it was the rainy season" or "this or that event happened around the same time" etc . history is not as universally coveted as we would sometimes like it to be especially in some non western cultures.
now, we can look at history to try to pinpoint a time when that person lived, and it seems the consensus is around 2600 years ago. what else exactly would you want?
there are people alive today who do not even know what year they were born in ,let alone the day or month, they are just told, "oh it was the rainy season" or "this or that event happened around the same time" etc . history is not as universally coveted as we would sometimes like it to be especially in some non western cultures.
สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ
the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat
the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat
Re: Historicity of the Buddha
Right on, Bankei. Don't get me wrong, it is definitely interesting, and it is not something that I dismiss, despite my above comments. But as far as 100% solid, objective evidence goes - I don't think its out there in the capacity that some are seeking. Look at it like this - for certain people, the amount of historical evidence that has been gathered about the Buddha and his teachings is enough for them to believe he existed. There are those more skeptical, but clearly see the value of the teaching that is attributed to him. For others, nothing short of DNA evidence will convince them that he once walked the earth - yet I willing to bet that those people, would see the value of the teachings if given the chance.Bankei wrote:For me, I think it is interesting to find out what actually happened historically. Whether the Buddha existed or not doesn't really matter in terms of practice, but it is still interesting to know, or attempt to find out what happened in the past. I am just as interested to find out if Christ existed, or the circumstances surrounding his life. It is just a matter of history.
I believe the most we can do, and this is in regards to any past events, is acquire a well rounded body of research, piece it together in the most logical manner possible, and then conclude with a given amount of certainty how those events took place. But that's as close as we are ever going to be able to get.
But overall, I just wanted to stress to Barry that not having this evidence should not dissuade him from looking deeper into the teachings.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
Re: Historicity of the Buddha
every belief system and filosofy has somehow been infiltrated
if we had all the scientific proof that buddha said this and only this and no more,
if we had proof that this is fake, and that is authentic, then there would be no division
sadly even buddhism as christianity, islam and judism all have sects and divisions
which proofs that there has been infiltration, intended or not is not the question,
the point is that some truth need to be investigated by your personal experience
with honest investigation we can find it back!!
if we had all the scientific proof that buddha said this and only this and no more,
if we had proof that this is fake, and that is authentic, then there would be no division
sadly even buddhism as christianity, islam and judism all have sects and divisions
which proofs that there has been infiltration, intended or not is not the question,
the point is that some truth need to be investigated by your personal experience
with honest investigation we can find it back!!
Re: Historicity of the Buddha
This is not so. The Vajrayana and Mahayana traditions accept that the Theravada Scriptures are Buddhavacana ~ but they say that what he taught was only what could be understood by people at that time. .... Later on, tibetan, chinese and other asian peoples were given other more complex and deep teachings because the general population was more intelligent and enlightened and could benefit from them.oceanman said: if we had proof that this is fake, and that is authentic, then there would be no division
with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Historicity of the Buddha
Greetings Oceanmen,
Replace "would" with "could" (or "should"?), fix a few typos, and I agree wholeheartedly.
Welcome to the Early Buddhism forum.
Metta,
Retro.
Replace "would" with "could" (or "should"?), fix a few typos, and I agree wholeheartedly.
Welcome to the Early Buddhism forum.
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: Historicity of the Buddha
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Oceanmen,
Replace "would" with "could" (or "should"?), fix a few typos, and I agree wholeheartedly.
Welcome to the Early Buddhism forum.
Metta,
Retro.
thats what i call mindfulness of speech, thanks!!
Re: Historicity of the Buddha
I have been practicing Buddhism for about 23 years, but i can understand the original post and the questions and concerns that are expressed therein. Many Buddhists use "scripture" to justify their personal practice, that borders ( sometimes ) on exclusiveness and self righteousness. As the poster has said....Examine deeply the teachings in Buddhism, and don't take anyone's word for any of it....try it and experience it for yourself. This thread reminds me of a book called "The Five Gospels" by Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar.... Biblical Scholars scour over the new testament to find out what "Jesus really said" and/or "who Jesus really was". It turns out that these scholars conclude that much of what is written in the Bible about what Jesus said is probably not the case. I think that oral transmitting of stories can contain the general content of the message, after generations of story telling much of the details can be lost. For me that doesn't matter. The heart of the "Buddhas" message is still in tact and it works. We will never know for sure, but to reject Buddhism because of the oral tradition/transmission would be , IMO, a mistake. Practice what you here and read.....find out for yourself.
Re: Historicity of the Buddha
I foolishly thought about this while shaving this morning:
Imagine someone gave you a map leading to a great treasure which you can begin to pick up step by step all along the way, after having gone to the proper place. They told you this map was written by an extraordinary man having lived say 2500 years ago. Then you go to the proper place according to the map and following indications, you move ahead. And you already start finding pieces of the treasure, which you can pick up and enjoy, and you become much wealthier than you can recall having ever been. And it seems more is coming ahead, exactly as much as written on the map.
Then someone comes and says: 'There is no evidence that ancient man actually existed, there is no evidence he wrote any map himself'. What do you tell him?
I just smile
Imagine someone gave you a map leading to a great treasure which you can begin to pick up step by step all along the way, after having gone to the proper place. They told you this map was written by an extraordinary man having lived say 2500 years ago. Then you go to the proper place according to the map and following indications, you move ahead. And you already start finding pieces of the treasure, which you can pick up and enjoy, and you become much wealthier than you can recall having ever been. And it seems more is coming ahead, exactly as much as written on the map.
Then someone comes and says: 'There is no evidence that ancient man actually existed, there is no evidence he wrote any map himself'. What do you tell him?
I just smile
Where knowledge ends, religion begins. - B. Disraeli
http://www.buddha-vacana.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.buddha-vacana.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;