So you're telling me that if a person said they were contemporaries of me, for example, and they mention meeting me and all describe me in the same way, if I am not referred to by a friend of mine in discourse unrelated to me, there's not enough proof I exist? The Buddha and his contemporaries were documented in other scriptures, and you say it's not enough evidence to say he existed? That's ridiculous. What IS enough evidence I existed?
Of course the fact that he isnt mentioned doesnt mean he didnt exist, I just said it was strange. Even more so since he debated many Jains
The Buddha and his contemporaries were documented in other scriptures, and you say it's not enough evidence to say he existed?
What scriptures, outside of the Pali Canon and chinese agmas?
Karen Armstrong and Michael Carrithers for one.
And who are they?
And none of them had any contact with each other for hundreds of years and yet the story is consistent
Of course it is if it shares the same foundational narrative, doesnt lead to an actual historical person though
Who would you compare the DNA to? We don't have the living Buddha to test it with
Why are you repeating my
question as if addressing a weak point in my argument. It was your argument that there are relics which prove there is a Buddha, not mine
we have physical evidence that he exists and somehow because we cannot test it against the living man it is somehow not enough to say he existed?
You have physical evidence that somebody existed, how you prove that relic is from Buddha I dont know. I dont think you can, the onus is on you here
We have corroborating historical records and somehow it's not enough to say he existed?
What historical texts corroborate the Buddha
Just what would prove it to you?
Something stronger than an argument that a relic = Buddha
Is this where this is coming from? You can't compare them. There's only one historical record of Jesus. There's no other one; with Buddha there's multiple corroborations.
Quite small details that are very hard to fabricate and corroborate where there was no contact for over 100 years. It would be like 8 witnessing and seeing me and passing down what I look like and describing me the same way 100 years later while never having talked to any other witnesses but they have the same story.
I think you need to be more clear on what historical separation you are talking about and who it is relating to
I certainly have, you just don't accept it.
Because you havent given me anything concrete