Historicity of the Buddha
Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 8:44 pm
I've been looking for actual evidence that there really was a person we call Buddha.
As I understand it, the earliest written references we have are around 100 CE, i.e. somewhere between 1000 years and 400 years after he was born, depending on which tradition you start with. If this is correct, it seems incredible that what was supposed to have been a vibrant, evangelical religion wasn't written about for hundreds of years after it started and expanded throughout the subcontinent (unlike every other religion I know about).
As far as Ashoka's edicts are concerned, they're silent on the topic of "Buddha" despite the usual story that he was a (the?) "Buddhist Emperor." (Assuming we can discount Minor Rock Edict #3, which doesn't fit at all with the "Beloved-of-the-Gods" style of all the other edicts, it's undated and seems an obvious forgery.)
What am I missing here?
thanks, barry
As I understand it, the earliest written references we have are around 100 CE, i.e. somewhere between 1000 years and 400 years after he was born, depending on which tradition you start with. If this is correct, it seems incredible that what was supposed to have been a vibrant, evangelical religion wasn't written about for hundreds of years after it started and expanded throughout the subcontinent (unlike every other religion I know about).
As far as Ashoka's edicts are concerned, they're silent on the topic of "Buddha" despite the usual story that he was a (the?) "Buddhist Emperor." (Assuming we can discount Minor Rock Edict #3, which doesn't fit at all with the "Beloved-of-the-Gods" style of all the other edicts, it's undated and seems an obvious forgery.)
What am I missing here?
thanks, barry