Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

is there any historical evidence that buddha existed out of pali canon?

sometimes i wonder what if buddha was just a fictional figure that was mixed with various myths and people' ideas. you may say " is it really matter? or what matter is his dhamma". for me it is really matter cuz if the person like buddha didn't exist, how would monks or sanghas life become cuz they are wasting whole life within a fictional role model to become like him. i am not posting this for against buddhism, actually i am a buddhist, but i think sometimes a person should challenge his or her belief.

Comments

  • What I've been learning is that this whole world is constructed through beliefs.

    Regardless of the real/unreal status of a belief, the belief itself has consequences.

    Karma or the law of cause and effect is unavoidable regardless of what we believe or don't believe.

    If one believes in an external deity and liberation in heaven after death then this belief has implications on how we relate to reality in the present.

    Just as if we believe making a lot of money will bring us happiness or lasting security, the energy, time, attention and confirmation bias/reality tunnel become the conditions for the cause/effect to manifest in our reality.

    Buddhism as a whole isn't about taking up new beliefs. Rather it is about questioning the assumption we hold as reality. Ignorance isn't not knowing but rather the assumption that we know.

    So the question is always to question the answers we are comfortable with.

    In fact the ability to question brings up the inherent insecurity of all we assume.

    Have fun!
    lobsterDandelionInvincible_summerDavid
  • jlljll Veteran
    the evidence can be found in places like Lumbini, Nepal and Kushinagar, India.
    these archaelogical sites were first discovered by British colonial officers in the 19th century.

    Evidence Of Buddha's Birth Date Uncovered By Archaeologists At Temple In Nepal.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/26/buddha-birth-date-nepal_n_4340089.html
    matthewmartincvalueTheEccentric
  • BhikkhuJayasaraBhikkhuJayasara Bhikkhu Veteran
    absolute said:

    sometimes i wonder what if buddha was just a fictional figure that was mixed with various myths and people' ideas. you may say " is it really matter? or what matter is his dhamma". for me it is really matter cuz if the person like buddha didn't exist, how would monks or sanghas life become cuz they are wasting whole life within a fictional role model to become like him. i am not posting this for against buddhism, actually i am a buddhist, but i think sometimes a person should challenge his or her belief.

    people say the same thing about Jesus.... I have no doubt both Jesus and Sidharta were mortal men, the historical and archaeological evidence is there, if scant.

    I also say this... EVEN if Buddha and Jesus, and Abraham, and Muhammad and every other religious figurehead was made up.. the message and the teaching are what matters. This is ESPECIALLY true in Buddhism where we are ALL capable of doing exactly what the Buddha did, so if he existed or not really doesn't matter, the teachings of dhamma and how they work for us on our journey towards Libertarian, or even just to live a happy life here and now, that is what matters.
  • thanks for responses and lessening my doubts :)
  • Sadly people have a tendency to care more about their next meal rather than their survival in life as a whole.
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited February 2014
    Some are skeptical that the man historically known as the Buddha ever existed, as archaeological evidence of that nature is admittedly scant; we have a few ancient stupas, a few ancient shrines, some ancient edicts erected by King Asoka, etc. But the system of thought and practices attributed to him is extremely complex, consistent, and foreshadows much of what we've come to understand about the way the mind works. And after years of study, I've come to the conclusion that these teachings stem from a single source (or sources), which may very well have been the Buddha himself.

    If one were to analyze other religious texts, such as the Bible or the Mahabharata, for example, there's evidence of layers of authorship (even in places where there's traditionally said to be only one author), and you can literally trace the evolution of these texts via changes in style, grammar, and content. The core of the Pali Canon, on the other hand, which forms the basis of Theravada Buddhism and is generally considered by scholars to be the closest thing we have to what the Buddha actually taught, shows evidence of originating from a single source through its consistency of content. As Prof. Richard Gombrich puts it, "I find (as Buddhists have always found) that the central part of the Canon... presents such originality, intelligence, grandeur and - most relevantly - coherence, that it is hard to see it as a composite works" (Theravada Buddhism, p. 20).

    And it may just be wishful thinking on my part, but I believe this is mainly due to the fact that the Buddha (or whomever these teachings originated from that we label as such) was a superbly gifted teacher, and that, despite evidence of later additions and modifications, much of what was taught seems to have been faithfully passed down by devotees and practitioners throughout the centuries via a combination of memorization, recitation, and written texts scrutinized at various councils.

    Whatever its origins, though, I, like Prof. Gombrich, "believe that the Buddha [or whomever got the wheel spinning] was an intellectual genius and had some extraordinarily interesting things to say." I'd go even further than this and venture to say that many of the teachings passed down to us are as relevant now as they were 2,500 years ago, offering tools and guidance in the search for a happiness that's not dependent upon outer conditions or favourable circumstances, for true peace of mind. And while I can't say for sure that this path leads to such a lofty goal, I can say that it's helped me immensely thus far, making me a much better and happier person in the process.
    anatamanpersonInvincible_summerJeongjwa
  • absoluteabsolute Explorer
    edited February 2014
    wangchuey said:

    Sadly people have a tendency to care more about their next meal rather than their survival in life as a whole.

    but sometimes people should make sure that their meals are not poisoned for surviving in life as a whole

  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    That's why it's always better to cook for yourself.
    That way, you KNOW what's on your plate.
    Yik_Yis_Yiilobsteranataman
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Sometimes I find this forum schizophrenic.

    Here we have people questioning whether Buddha (as in Siddhartha) ever actually existed...and there is a reasonable amount of evidence for the vast majority of historians that he did.

    And, in other discussions, some of those same posters talk about the 28 Buddhas that preceded Siddhartha...for which there is no real evidence that satisfies historians (and in fact, considering human evolution would be virtually impossible).

    The one thing I agree with in this thread is that ultimately it doesn't matter whether Buddha existed or not. It only matters if the teaching is valid.
  • anatamananataman Who needs a title? Where am I? Veteran
    edited February 2014
    federica said:

    That's why it's always better to cook for yourself.
    That way, you KNOW what's on your plate.

    I'm going to put that one on my wall and frame it! Lol
  • howhow Veteran Veteran
    That is the beauty of an actual meditation practice over a mentality about a practice. It simply contrasts all the theory and history of endless possible "what if's" with a demonstrable truth of the path towards suffering's cessation.

    Invincible_summer
  • wangchueywangchuey Veteran
    edited February 2014
    Sorry if my post was off topic. I just couldn't help but think its always our uncaring ways that burys the truth. People didn't care when he was alive and after he pased, and of course if there was another Saint/Bodhisattva/Buddha alive today, most wouldn't care either. Only those that helped kept his teachings alive were the ones that cared.

    Now its time for us to do our part and show some caring. We can help keep his teachings alive by practicing it.
  • wangchueywangchuey Veteran
    edited February 2014
    The Triple Gem is the Buddha, the one who knows the way to end suffering, and the one who teaches it. The dhamma is the teaching of the Buddha and the true nature of things. The Sangha are the desciples of the Buddha that helped keep the original teachings alive. Please correct me if i have defined the Triple Gem incorrectly.
  • matthewmartinmatthewmartin Amateur Bodhisattva Suburbs of Mt Meru Veteran
    wangchuey said:

    if there was another Saint/Bodhisattva/Buddha alive today, most wouldn't care either.

    Maybe you need to look at some older threads on this forum-- a certain percent of people are quite interested in which celebrities might be Bodhisattvas. And I just read that Myedvedev (used to be prime minister in Russia) is a re-incarnation of the Bodhisattva White Tara.

    As for more prosaic examples of modern day Bodhisattvas, the teachers, we seem to care intently when our hopes were dashed (and it turns out that celebrity Buddhist teacher of the moment is mundanely human and can't keep themselves out of scandal)

    Anyhow, good point, we collectively were incredibly lucky that *some* Buddha or Bodhisatva (or a whole committee of them) existed 2500 years ago and someone cared enough to keep track of what they taught.




  • Anyhow, good point, we collectively were incredibly lucky that *some* Buddha or Bodhisatva (or a whole committee of them) existed 2500 years ago and someone cared enough to keep track of what they taught.
    Exactly so. Something for everyone. On it goes, interpreted, invigorated, sometimes dying, corrupted, sometimes essence of enlightenment.
    It is up to us whether the Buddha lives. It is up to us to care for the three jewels: sangha, dharma, Buddha. It would be crazy not to.

    matthewmartin
  • TheEccentricTheEccentric Hampshire, UK Veteran
    I always had though it was out of the question of him not existing with all of the evidence we have. Haven't they found where he grew up?
  • vinlyn said:

    Sometimes I find this forum schizophrenic.

    Here we have people questioning whether Buddha (as in Siddhartha) ever actually existed...and there is a reasonable amount of evidence for the vast majority of historians that he did.

    And, in other discussions, some of those same posters talk about the 28 Buddhas that preceded Siddhartha...for which there is no real evidence that satisfies historians (and in fact, considering human evolution would be virtually impossible).

    The one thing I agree with in this thread is that ultimately it doesn't matter whether Buddha existed or not. It only matters if the teaching is valid.

    Aren't people wonderful?

    I don't think any scholar or historian would argue that a man who became known as the Buddha never existed. At the same time, I doubt few would argue that the picture of him and his life we get now is entirely accurate. The Buddha of the Sutras is filtered through the eyes of people who worshiped him, considered him perfect and whose every word and action must shine with Enlightenment. There is little room for a normal human being in that story.

    And we can't say that the closer we get to Buddha's own lifetime, the more accurate the picture. Those who surrounded him were just as biased. Look at the adoring devoted disciples that surround our modern gurus and see if you trust them for an accurate picture. Soon after Buddha's death, when Ananda was put on trial, one charge was that he accidentally stepped on the Buddha's robe...while repairing it. Say what? And another charge was that Ananda didn't use his influence on the Buddha to have their founder use his vast powers to heal himself and continue living. So even the people who sat at the Buddha's feet hardly could be counted on to be impartial witnesses of the man's life.

    So someone was born, lived and died who became known as the Buddha and impressed his followers enough to be worshiped and revered and transformed their lives.
    vinlynlobster
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran

    vinlyn said:

    Sometimes I find this forum schizophrenic.

    I'm in 2 minds about that. :p
    That's 2 more minds than your posts usually demonstrate!

    No, I'm only kidding. You're actually a very thoughtful poster...even when we are in disagreement. I just couldn't resist.

    matthewmartinanatamanInvincible_summer
  • matthewmartinmatthewmartin Amateur Bodhisattva Suburbs of Mt Meru Veteran
    Cinorjer said:

    I don't think any scholar or historian would argue that a man who became known as the Buddha never existed.

    According to Lopez in "From Stone to Flesh: A Short History of the Buddha " for several hundred years in Europe the stories travelers brought back from the East were so garbled about the Buddha that it really was understandable to conclude that it was just another legendary personage. It's over the last 100 years that the west can now say there is a body of scholarship that, imho, should make the fictional basis of the historical Buddha a minority viewpoint.

    Cinorjer
  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator
    I don't know that it would be impossible to memorize even very lengthy sutras. Remember we're in the business of mind training, and when done with rhythm, which is how sutras are memorized, you can do quite well. I could *easily* recite hours worth of song lyrics off the top of my head because of that. I have a good memory, but it's not fabulous, and I could still do that because of how rhythm works in conjunction with words. People who have extremely good memories are even better, and I don't think it's too far of a stretch to assume that possibly some of the monks of Buddha had that kind of memory. Even my teacher has memorized many, many sutras and teachings. That's what they do. When your mind isn't used up worrying about daycare, and bills, and mortgages, and car repairs and propane bills and Olympic snowboarding and what to do about your kid's grades and so on, you have, I think, a lot more ability to dedicate that much more of your brain to study and memorization and learning. Most certainly everyone probably couldn't do it. But I think it's highly possible some could, and did.
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    vinlyn said:

    vinlyn said:

    Sometimes I find this forum schizophrenic.

    I'm in 2 minds about that. :p
    That's 2 more minds than your posts usually demonstrate!

    No, I'm only kidding. You're actually a very thoughtful poster...even when we are in disagreement. I just couldn't resist.

    :p
  • absolute said:

    sometimes i wonder what if buddha was just a fictional figure that was mixed with various myths and people' ideas. you may say " is it really matter? or what matter is his dhamma". for me it is really matter cuz if the person like buddha didn't exist, how would monks or sanghas life become cuz they are wasting whole life within a fictional role model to become like him. i am not posting this for against buddhism, actually i am a buddhist, but i think sometimes a person should challenge his or her belief.

    When the British were ruling India, they heard of Buddha from the locals. They were only convinced of his existence when their archaeologists discovered ruins related to him and that most probably included the ancient Nalanda university. If you need to be convinced too, most certainly you have to visit India, following the Buddha's trail from the place where he was born, from Lumbini in present day Nepal to places where he had preached, including ,Varanasi, which used to be Benares in India. I suppose there is where he preached to the 5 ascetic. You could even visit Angulimala's cave along the way and the place where Devadatta met his end.
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    Probably best to actually read the Pali Canon and make up your own mind.
  • Probably best to actually read the Pali Canon and make up your own mind.

    That's a non sequitur.
    The most that reading the Pali canon can do is demonstrate that who ever compiled the canon existed.
    More conservative commentators find a common source for some of its contents.
    Other commentators claim that much of the Canon dates from about 500 hundred years after the agreed dates for the Buddha and probably were the work of Buddhaghosa and his followers.
    Perhaps the emphasis has to be the authority that comes from the experiential, rather than from ancient authority.


  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    Citta said:

    <
    Perhaps the emphasis has to be the authority that comes from the experiential, rather than from ancient authority.

    I don't see why, given that the early texts describe Buddhist methods of practice and therefore shape our experience.

    And as far as I'm concerned if what contemporary teachers say doesn't broadly correspond to what the suttas say, then I start to ask questions.

    OK, so we question the authenticity of the suttas, but how often do we question the authenticity of contemporary teachers - particularly the ones we've grown attached to?

    The point I was really making that if one hasn't read the Pali Canon then it's a bit pointless debating about it. It's rather like debating the divinity of Christ without having read the New Testament.
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited February 2014
    absolute said:

    sometimes i wonder what if buddha was just a fictional figure that was mixed with various myths and people' ideas. you may say " is it really matter? or what matter is his dhamma". for me it is really matter cuz if the person like buddha didn't exist, how would monks or sanghas life become cuz they are wasting whole life within a fictional role model to become like him. i am not posting this for against buddhism, actually i am a buddhist, but i think sometimes a person should challenge his or her belief.

    Ah ...A different matter. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary I assumed you were addressing the OP...see above. The Pali Canon, being a closed system, does not address the historicity of the Buddha at all. It assumes it.
    But..theres the rub. The earliest part of the canon dates from half a millenium after the agreed dates for any historical Gautama. That's the same period as from Henry the 8th to now.
    Reading the Canon may be a good idea for all sorts of reasons. But it won't answer the question posed in the OP.
    Which in any case asks for evidence other than the Canon.
Sign In or Register to comment.