Proof of the Buddha's Existence

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism

Proof of the Buddha's Existence

Postby Dhammakid » Sat Oct 02, 2010 1:13 am

Hello all,
First: Quite frankly, I don't care if there's no proof of the Blessed One's existence. The teachings are relevant enough in my life that I will follow them regardless of whether or not he actually existed.

But I am curious. I remember watching the BBC documentary "Life of the Buddha" and it mentioned a stupa with writing on it saying something about the Buddha. What other proof is there, if any?

:anjali:
Dhammakid
User avatar
Dhammakid
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Georgia, USA

Re: Proof of the Buddha's Existence

Postby Sobeh » Sat Oct 02, 2010 1:44 am

That so many people decided his life and words were important enough to base a lifestyle on is a relatively strong statement supporting the historicity of the Buddha.
User avatar
Sobeh
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:35 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, US

Re: Proof of the Buddha's Existence

Postby Dhammakid » Sat Oct 02, 2010 2:10 am

Hi Sobeh,
I understand your point, but to be honest (and not hurtful), the same can be said for Christ, but there is very little actual evidence of his existence.

Just because people believe in the Buddha and follow his teachings doesn't mean he actually existed. If that's the case, the millions of children who believe in Santa Claus might be on to something :tongue:

:anjali:
Dhammakid
User avatar
Dhammakid
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Georgia, USA

Re: Proof of the Buddha's Existence

Postby Sobeh » Sat Oct 02, 2010 2:12 am

Define 'actual evidence' as you understand it in this context, please, otherwise we'll be sure to misunderstand one another.
User avatar
Sobeh
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:35 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, US

Re: Proof of the Buddha's Existence

Postby Dhammakid » Sat Oct 02, 2010 2:23 am

Sobeh wrote:Define 'actual evidence' as you understand it in this context, please, otherwise we'll be sure to misunderstand one another.


Yes, definitely.

What I mean is: aside from the few small pieces of historical documentation (all of which have been found to be unreliable), there is no further evidence for the existence of a man named "Jesus the Christ" or "Jesus of Nazareth" who was born of a virgin, performed numerous miracles, was crucified and ressurected. There may be record of a man named Jesus who lived in Nazareth at that time, but that's like saying there's record of a man named Michael who lived in California a hundred years ago. It doesn't prove anything.

Furthermore, a cursory perusal of countless savior myths from various religions around the world will reveal that the story of the Christian Jesus Christ was plagiarized almost entirely, and that he actually personifies the sun god worship of ancient pagans.

What I'm looking for is solid proof - reliable historical documentation, governmental record (i.e. "governing body" or systematized record-keeping, etc),a familial bloodline, something, anything. I'm assuming that because he was of royal birth, there has to be something out there documenting his existence.

I'm am not versed on what constitutes "solid proof" or "historical proof," but if someone here is, I would like to hear what they have to say. To my understanding, there is in existence tooth and hair relics, and I know there are key landmark sites one can visit, as well as the stupa I mentioned in my first post. Is there anything else out there?

:anjali:
Dhammakid
User avatar
Dhammakid
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Georgia, USA

Re: Proof of the Buddha's Existence

Postby David N. Snyder » Sat Oct 02, 2010 2:56 am

See also:

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=4073


Dhammakid wrote:Furthermore, a cursory perusal of countless savior myths from various religions around the world will reveal that the story of the Christian Jesus Christ was plagiarized almost entirely, and that he actually personifies the sun god worship of ancient pagans.


And also the Greek gods, who were also busy impregnating virgin mortal women, well before the story of Jesus.

But the story of Buddha is much different, a mortal man, born from a man and woman, not from the highest caste (a Khattiya which is high, but still not a Brahmin), who may have performed some miracles, but didn't care much for them or for others exhibiting them. And he said that there can be other Buddhas, that he is not the seal or final prophet, not the beginning nor the end. Buddhism is the only major religion where followers can attain to the same status as the founder.
User avatar
David N. Snyder
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7947
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Re: Proof of the Buddha's Existence

Postby Individual » Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:23 am

Dhammakid wrote:Hello all,
First: Quite frankly, I don't care if there's no proof of the Blessed One's existence. The teachings are relevant enough in my life that I will follow them regardless of whether or not he actually existed.

But I am curious. I remember watching the BBC documentary "Life of the Buddha" and it mentioned a stupa with writing on it saying something about the Buddha. What other proof is there, if any?

:anjali:
Dhammakid

I don't know or care to know. Sorry to sound so cynical in your thread, but from what I've seen on what "mainstream historians" believe about Jesus Christ, I really wouldn't give them any credit on what they believe about Buddha -- much less what the fringe groups believe.

If you examine the details of archaelogical digs and source documents, it's an interesting discussion, but history is and has always remained something like a conspiracy theory. People have to weave together pieces of disconnected evidence to create a story which they think makes sense. History, then, is more of an art than a science, because it relies so heavily on subjective interpretation. That is, the story people create is always influenced by their background. It's amazing, for instance, to see how differently American educational institutions vs. British educational institutions describe the American Revolutionary War -- and that was only a few hundred years ago! And today, both sides are allies, yet we still maintain slightly different histories.

We have a lot of Australian members in this forum. I would guess that your own country has some kind of pleasant-sounding story on how you peacefully displaced the Aboriginals, how white Europeans established hegemony through non-violent and voluntary cooperation with the natives.

Any history of the Buddha would also be a pleasant story, yet we could never verify it as true or false, even though our intuition tells us that some part of the story might be wrong. Or we could blindly accept a particular story as fact which is just as bad.

In any case, what's the origin of this curiosity? How can you not care, yet also be curious?
Last edited by Individual on Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
Individual
 
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Proof of the Buddha's Existence

Postby Sobeh » Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:28 am

Dhammakid wrote:I'm am not versed on what constitutes "solid proof" or "historical proof


With history there is sometimes an intersection of primary source documents when they describe the same thing from different perspectives. When this happens we have a strong reason for accepting what is written about, not with respect to ontological facts but with respect to epistemological ones. For example, besides various orthodox and heterodox gospels about Jesus there are numerous letters coincident with his life and times. He was also written about by Josephus (a historian), Tacitus, and Martyr, and together with many other documents the weight of evidence proves a historical Jesus existed who preached an interpretation of Judaism (denying this claim is tantamount to denying History as a modern discipline, which is unwarranted hyper-skepticism). With the Buddha we have similar textual references - for example, the Jains have a corpus of literature which records the Buddha, and this is of course alongside the slew of texts such as the Nikayas and the Agamas.

It is important to note that these texts are not proof of the hagiography of these individuals, they only prove that there was such an individual about whom others wrote hagiographies. It is also important to reflect that a hagiography of Jesus makes many doctrinal claims about what the existence of Jesus the Christ means, whereas in Buddhism the related hagiography is wholly incidental to the Teaching.
User avatar
Sobeh
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:35 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, US

Re: Proof of the Buddha's Existence

Postby Kim OHara » Sat Oct 02, 2010 5:11 am

Individual wrote:We have a lot of Australian members in this forum. I would guess that your own country has some kind of pleasant-sounding story on how you peacefully displaced the Aboriginals, how white Europeans established hegemony through non-violent and voluntary cooperation with the natives.

Actually, we don't. Our historians do argue, quite vehemently, over specifics but in general we do all know what went on. At our least honest, we say as little as possible about the process of European settlement; at our most honest, we acknowledge (most of) the bad stuff and apologise for it.
:namaste:
Kim

EDIT: Individual, I took 'your own country' to be 'Australia' and answered accordingly but then I looked back and couldn't see any Aussie replies earlier in the thread. I'll leave it, but I think someone's confused.
:thinking:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 2990
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Proof of the Buddha's Existence

Postby Individual » Sat Oct 02, 2010 1:40 pm

Kim O'Hara wrote:
Individual wrote:We have a lot of Australian members in this forum. I would guess that your own country has some kind of pleasant-sounding story on how you peacefully displaced the Aboriginals, how white Europeans established hegemony through non-violent and voluntary cooperation with the natives.

Actually, we don't. Our historians do argue, quite vehemently, over specifics but in general we do all know what went on. At our least honest, we say as little as possible about the process of European settlement; at our most honest, we acknowledge (most of) the bad stuff and apologise for it.
:namaste:
Kim

EDIT: Individual, I took 'your own country' to be 'Australia' and answered accordingly but then I looked back and couldn't see any Aussie replies earlier in the thread. I'll leave it, but I think someone's confused.
:thinking:
Kim

"Your own country" isn't directed towards the OP.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
Individual
 
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Proof of the Buddha's Existence

Postby Dhammakid » Sat Oct 02, 2010 2:28 pm

Thanks for the responses everyone.

Individual: I agree with your points. It does make sense that any attempted historical narrative unintentionally reflects the historian's background, training, methodology or subjective beliefs, even if only in part. I'm not sure how I can be curious but not ultimately care, but I do know that's how I feel. I guess what I mean is that it would be cool if I could demonstrate such proof in discussion with my Christian family when the topic comes up, but even if I'm unable to, that doesn't mean I will stop practicing. I know for sure I would not practice Christianity even if proof of Jesus the Annointed One could be adequately demonstrated because I don't agree with the teachings of Christianity (and because there would be no reason to follow him as opposed to many others just like him, since there's nothing making him better than the other "saviors.")

David: Yes, indeed. There is strong evidence that the narrative of Jesus is plagiarized from the worship of Dionysus. Even more interesting is the near universal tradition of ecstatic dance and worship, which, when observed from a historical and modern day standpoint, resembles closely the worship habits of today's fundamentalists and born-again Christians (speaking in tongue, for instance).

Sobeh: The three sources of historical documentation of Christ are exactly what I was referring to when I said the few sources of his existence are known to be unreliable. I'm no historian so I can't back that up, but I will say I've read that on a number of occassions. And as a matter of fact, I've read documents quoting Christian apologists from a few hundred years after Jesus and them admitting that, in order to convert various pagans from other lands, they had to equate Jesus with various sun gods because the stories were nearly identical.

But yes, it's interesting to note that the Buddha is mentioned in the literature of other practices. I can attest to that myself, having studied and practiced Sikhism for some time and reading the Sri Guru Granth Sahib where it mentions on a number of occassions the order of Buddhas. But to my knowledge, isn't Jesus mentioned in the Quran?

:anjali:
Dhammakid
User avatar
Dhammakid
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Georgia, USA

Re: Proof of the Buddha's Existence

Postby Dhammakid » Sat Oct 02, 2010 2:33 pm

David: The discussion of which you provided the link provided great perspective for my question. Thanks. I didn't think about the oral tradition being most prominent in the time of the Buddha, and the culture of that time being mostly non-literate.

:anjali:
Dhammakid
User avatar
Dhammakid
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Georgia, USA

Re: Proof of the Buddha's Existence

Postby pilgrim » Sat Oct 02, 2010 2:45 pm

I can't even prove my great-grandfather existed..
User avatar
pilgrim
 
Posts: 932
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: Proof of the Buddha's Existence

Postby Spiny O'Norman » Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:20 pm

pilgrim wrote:I can't even prove my great-grandfather existed..


If your grandfather hadn't existed then you wouldn't exist.

And by the same logic, if the Buddha hadn't existed then Buddhists wouldn't exist.

Spiny <making sharp exit before dodgy logic is challenged> :jumping:
User avatar
Spiny O'Norman
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 8:46 am
Location: Suffolk, England

Re: Proof of the Buddha's Existence

Postby Sobeh » Sat Oct 02, 2010 6:13 pm

Dhammakid wrote:The three sources of historical documentation of Christ are exactly what I was referring to when I said the few sources of his existence are known to be unreliable. I'm no historian so I can't back that up...


Well, asking for a link supporting such a claim deviates us from Buddhism a bit too much, so instead I will simply remark that blind skepticism is similar to blind faith, and skepticism about the existence of historical persons who have robust documentation is simply excessive; if the standards of the international community of historians aren't considered valid, the conversation becomes difficult to accomplish.

:heart:

P.S. There is no historical proof of Christ. There is only historical proof of Jesus. Remember to differentiate hagiography from history.
User avatar
Sobeh
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:35 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, US

Re: Proof of the Buddha's Existence

Postby Dhammakid » Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:53 pm

Sobeh wrote:
Dhammakid wrote:The three sources of historical documentation of Christ are exactly what I was referring to when I said the few sources of his existence are known to be unreliable. I'm no historian so I can't back that up...


Well, asking for a link supporting such a claim deviates us from Buddhism a bit too much, so instead I will simply remark that blind skepticism is similar to blind faith, and skepticism about the existence of historical persons who have robust documentation is simply excessive; if the standards of the international community of historians aren't considered valid, the conversation becomes difficult to accomplish.

:heart:

P.S. There is no historical proof of Christ. There is only historical proof of Jesus. Remember to differentiate hagiography from history.


We definitely have different understandings of what constitutes "robust documentation." The three sources we both have discussed concerning Jesus are the only three I know to exist.

And as for your p.s. - I have already stated this, that there may be evidence for a person named Jesus who lived at that time, but that proves nothing about the Christ his followers claim to be god.

:anjali:
Dhammakid
User avatar
Dhammakid
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Georgia, USA

Re: Proof of the Buddha's Existence

Postby Sobeh » Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:07 pm

Dhammakid wrote:We definitely have different understandings of what constitutes "robust documentation." The three sources we both have discussed concerning Jesus are the only three I know to exist.


To those three, add Suetonius and Pliny the Younger. This is, of course, alongside the gospels and epistles and apocrypha and agrapha... they all point to Jesus the man. It's simply the best sort of historical fact there can be, and disagreeing with it is disagreeing with the discipline of history altogether. The documents are not held in question the way you seem to think they are.
User avatar
Sobeh
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:35 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, US

Re: Proof of the Buddha's Existence

Postby Dhammakid » Sun Oct 03, 2010 12:14 am

Sobeh wrote:
Dhammakid wrote:We definitely have different understandings of what constitutes "robust documentation." The three sources we both have discussed concerning Jesus are the only three I know to exist.


To those three, add Suetonius and Pliny the Younger. This is, of course, alongside the gospels and epistles and apocrypha and agrapha... they all point to Jesus the man. It's simply the best sort of historical fact there can be, and disagreeing with it is disagreeing with the discipline of history altogether. The documents are not held in question the way you seem to think they are.


I beg to differ. But since I'm no historian, I'll leave it to you to do your own research. All I can say is the dialogue about the authenticity of the documents mentioned is pretty big right now. I would encourage you to look into it and let me know what you think. Again, I will mention the evidence that the whole life story of Jesus is plagiarized from sun god worship and the pagan beliefs of various cultures throughout history. I am definitely not convinced that there's as much agreement as you claim.

I digress on the topic of Jesus. I feel, from all the responses here, that the important thing for me to remember when looking for proof of the Buddha's existence is that any historical documents and relics are subject to individual interpretation, as well as the fact that record-keeping wasn't then what it is now. From reading the discussion on the linked thread, it seems actual documents have many drawbacks that oral traditions don't, although I guess the same can be said for the other way around.

:anjali:
Dhammakid
User avatar
Dhammakid
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Georgia, USA

Re: Proof of the Buddha's Existence

Postby Sobeh » Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:01 am

Well, try this site to get a nice summary position.

In the end, however, you simply don't seem able to sustain the difference between hagiography and history; "the whole life story of Jesus is plagiarized from sun god worship" is referring to hagiography, not the historical person. Keep these straight, else you will continually be confused about how historical evidence differs from religious evidence.
User avatar
Sobeh
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:35 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, US

Re: Proof of the Buddha's Existence

Postby Dhammakid » Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:23 am

Sobeh wrote:Well, try this site to get a nice summary position.

In the end, however, you simply don't seem able to sustain the difference between hagiography and history; "the whole life story of Jesus is plagiarized from sun god worship" is referring to hagiography, not the historical person. Keep these straight, else you will continually be confused about how historical evidence differs from religious evidence.


Thanks for the link, I will look it over.

I may have confused my wording, but I'm not confused as to what your point is. I've disputed the authenticity of the documents you mentioned as well as the evidence for religious belief in Jesus. I've stated that there are researchers who don't accept the documents as proof of Jesus' existence, but of course I realize there are historians who do. Two sides to every coin I suppose.

(EDIT: Good link. Provides a thorough presentation of both sides and enough links and reading to keep me busy for a while. Thanks again.)

:anjali:
Dhammakid
User avatar
Dhammakid
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Georgia, USA


Return to General Theravāda discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: chownah, dhammapal and 17 guests