The triumph of Buddhist denialism: Buddhism without the Buddha
http://sujato.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/ ... he-buddha/
Is interesting not so much for the actual blog, but for the discussion that follows over what exactly can be known about early Buddhism. Hard to summarise in brief, but this comment (currently the last one, but I presume that won't last) is food for thought:
LLT / Dec 6 2013 11:10 pm wrote: ... From what I have seen, though, there are two different approaches to the study. When confronted with differences between texts, secular scholars tend to point these out as differences, while scholars associated with a monastic tradition sometimes go to great lengths to assure the reader of continuity and to “smooth over” any differences. I’m all for the academic study of early Buddhism, but it should be done without bias from traditional mythologies about the matter.