Evidence for the existence of Gautama Buddha

[S.A.M.]

Is there any?

Here is what I know:

The time of his birth and death are uncertain: most early 20th-century historians date his lifetime from c. 563 BCE to 483 BCE; more recently, however, at a specialist symposium on this question,[2] the majority of those scholars who presented definite opinions gave dates within 20 years either side of 400 BCE for the Buddha's death, with others supporting earlier or later dates

Now the "early" Buddhist texts were written down in 1 B.C. [Pali Canon] and later

Mahayana sutras are a very broad genre of Buddhist scriptures of which the Mahayana Buddhist tradition claim that they are original teachings of the Buddha. The Theravada and the other Early Buddhist Schools claim that the Mahayana Sutras are later compositions, not taught by the Buddha

"According to tradition, the Buddha's discourses were already collected by the time of the first council, held shortly after the Buddha's death ... Scholars, however, see the texts as continually growing in number and size from an unknown nucleus, thereby undergoing various changes in language and content ..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agamas

No one knows what he really looked like:

No representations of the Buddha were made for about four or five centuries. It is sometimes said that prior to this time it was 'forbidden' to make statues or pictures of the Buddha, but this is unlikely and there is no evidence of such a prohibition. A more likely explanation is that until then symbols of the Buddha (stupas, footprints, an empty throne etc.) and written descriptions of him were deemed sufficient. Whatever the reasons, the first Buddha statues were produced in about the 1st or 2nd century AD in Bactria (Afghanistan and northern Pakistan) perhaps as a result of Greek influence, and in Mathura.

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dharmadata/fdd35.htm

So what evidence is there for Buddha? Did he exist or was he made up by people? How do we know his "history"?

 

[spidergoat]

I don't know, does it matter? There have been Buddhas since then.

 

[S.A.M.]

Oh don't you want to know if he was a real person and whether he did say such and such or merely plagiarised what other people said? Won't it make a MASSIVE difference to your view of Buddhism?

 

[spidergoat]

Nope.

 

[S.A.M.]

Oh come on, surely if you found out that Buddha was actually some Tamilian guy playing a cosmic joke, you'd give up everything you knew about Buddhism?

 

[MacGyver1968]

Would you think the same thing if Muhammad was found to be a story of fiction?

 

[spidergoat]

Oh come on, surely if you found out that Buddha was actually some Tamilian guy playing a cosmic joke, you'd give up everything you knew about Buddhism?

Not at all. My appreciation of it is based on it's own qualities. Of course, Buddhism IS a cosmic joke. You find that out when enlightenment happens. It's not a cult of personality, it's not based on any miracles.

 

[S.A.M.]

You find that out when enlightenment happens.

What enlightenment is that?

Would you think the same thing if Muhammad was found to be a story of fiction?

Duh, what do you think?

 

[spidergoat]

What enlightenment is that?

The one described by Buddha or whoever.

 

[S.A.M.]

I mean what does it change about you? What sort of epiphany do you get?

 

[w1z4rd]

So what evidence is there for Buddha? Did he exist or was he made up by people? How do we know his "history"?

He is like Allah. Made up by people.

 

[spidergoat]

I mean what does it change about you? What sort of epiphany do you get?

I'm not really sure. Every time I try to describe it, the words seem inadequate. I can only say that it isn't a matter of thought or intellect, otherwise it could be written down and transmitted in that way. I think it can only be experienced.

 

[S.A.M.]

Hmm, I've read Buddha's doctrine and it seems highly idealistic to me. I don't know anyone who does not cling to some form of "attachment" and I can't imagine why anyone would want to reach a state free of dukha. Its like having CIPA.

 

[spidergoat]

It does describe an ideal of initial conditions that would assist the realization of this state. Most people don't have the will power to fufill all of his recommendations, but that isn't necessary. Every bit helps.

 

[S.A.M.]

Since I do not see the point of a desire free life, I'm not interested in what assists the realisation of such a state.

 

[spidergoat]

That's fine, there is no perogative in Buddhism to convince others. If you aren't sick, you don't need medicine.

 

[Cris]

The philosophy of Buddhism is cohesive whether the actual person of Buddha existed or not.

Islam, and its primary branches, on the other hand depends entirely on the ideas of Mohammed and his offspring. Discredit Mohammed and his sons and much of Islam will collapse.

Christianity is even worse: If Jesus never existed then the entire notion of a savior for the human race is total nonsence. It is essential for Christianity that Jesus actually existed. We have yet to see any eveidence that that is true yet.

 

[spidergoat]

On a related subject, the founder of Taoism, Lao Tzu, quite possibly never existed. Some people say he might have been a composite of several people.

 

[S.A.M.]

The philosophy of Buddhism is cohesive whether the actual person of Buddha existed or not.

Islam, and its primary branches, on the other hand depends entirely on the ideas of Mohammed and his offspring. Discredit Mohammed and his sons and much of Islam will collapse. .

Not at all. For one thing he had no sons, just one daughter. Secondly, Mohammed-ur-rasoolullah, he is only a messenger. Its not his message. He is not a guide or a warner.

You [Mohammed] are not responsible for guiding anyone. God is the only one who guides whoever chooses (to be guided). 2:272

 

[swarm]

Is there any?

Do you mean was Siddhārtha Gautama a real person?

Its entirely possible since there is nothing in particular that would make him having been real problematic. Its more likely that he is a composite of local hero myths and early leaders. Certainly a lot of Buddhist texts were written by others and attributed to him.

Does it matter? Not at all. Any one who takes Buddhism based on what they think old Gautama said in some sutta doesn't understand Buddhism. Its not about him. Its not about this or that sutta. Its about taking the techniques and learning, testing it against your life and becoming a Buddha yourself.

Ultimately the goal of Buddhism is for it to become superfluous so that you discard it and are able to stand on your own. A light unto yourself.