Looking for surviving records completely outside the Pali canon and it’s parallels that describe/mention/allude to the historical existence of Siddhartha Gautama. Do any such records exist?
The Jain texts I believe mention the Buddha and there are a number of inscriptions from the Buddhist sites.
2 Likes
I assume you mean IRL sites and stones, not web sites. 
1 Like
Obviously the Ashokan inscriptions. The site at Deokothar is possibly earlier, but has little that is clear.
Brahmanical texts from a fairly early date showed influence from Buddhism, but as to when the earliest reference to the Buddha I would not know.
There are also quite a number of mentions in Greek and Roman authors.
It’d be interesting to look into Chinese texts as well. The translations began about 400 years after the Buddha, but I wonder of there were previous mentions?
Then there is the Tamil literature, often understudied, but which also retains old roots.
None as far as I know that describe a “Buddha” (as calling him that would be a Buddhist statement of belief) but there are several candidates in Skt texts, one of whom may have been what the Pali (and other EBTs) call “the Buddha”.
In one of the earliest Tamil Sangham texts (called Pura-Nānūru dating perhaps to the 2nd century BCE or thereabouts) is a verse attributed to a lady called avvai (which is = the word ayyā in Pāli, maybe she was a bhikṣunī) that appears to be a Tamil equivalent of a Dharmapada verse.
நாடா கொன்றோ ; காடா கொன்றோ;
அவலா கொன்றோ ; மிசையா கொன்றோ;
எவ்வழி நல்லவர் ஆடவர்,
அவ்வழி நல்லை ; வாழிய நிலனே! (புறநானூறு 187)
Meaning of the above:
Hey land, whether you are a habited land or the wilderness,
Whether a lowland or a highland
Wherever good men live,
You will be good, and prosper!
Pali Dharmapada equivalent:
gāme vā yadi vāraññe,
ninne vā yadi vā thale,
yattharahanto viharanti
taṁ bhūmiṁ rāmaṇeyyakaṁ
The pali appears to be translating the Tamil rather than vice versa, replacing “good men” with “arahants”
3 Likes
Christopher Beckwith in his book Greek Buddha: Pyrrho’s Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia (Princeton UP, 2017; 2015) writes mostly about Pyrrhonian skepticism being a form of Buddhism adopted by Pyrrho in India; however, Beckwith is also a linguist who frequently writes on Sino-Tibetan historical lingusitics, and he notes that the traditional name for 老子 Lǎozǐ (also Laotzu), the legendary/mythical author of the 道德經 The Dàodéjīng, is referred to as 老聃 Lǎodān in the 莊子 The Zhuāngzǐ (also The Chuangtsu). Beckwith finds sources in the Chinese tradition that would support the early pronunciation of 老聃 Lǎodān being *Gaudam or *Gaudama. So that could point to a) an early introduction of fragmented understanding of Buddhism in Chinese thought and b) the Chinese hearing from afar of the Buddha. (If anyone’s curious I can send the argument.)
The Zhuangzi itself dates to sometime after the legendary author’s death (301, 295, or 286 BC, depending on estimates), but the only version that we have was compiled by 郭象 Guōxiàng (252–312 AD) in the Han Dynasty. So when a possible Buddha reference was entered into the work could be anytime between 301 BC and 312 AD.
2 Likes
I’d also bd interested in this - so I’ll give it a push. I scrolled through some of the related threads via search function on this forum but didn’t see a list or something like that. I’d be interested in textual references outside any buddhist tradition. Is there something like that?
In Diogenes Laertius, the chapter on Pyrrho and the chapter on Democritus allude to them having been in contact with the gymnosophists in India, without specifying who those gymnosophists really were (and I believe this is 'till this day highy disputed).
2 Likes
The book I just mentioned, Greek Buddha: Pyrrho’s Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia by Chris Beckwith (Princeton UP, 2017; 2015), is part of that dispute. He argues as the subtitle states. Thomas McEvilley in The Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies (Allworth, 2001) argues that Pyrrho influenced ancient India; however, I think Beckwith makes a convincing case that India influenced Greece, especially seeing that Pyrrho came out with Indian-like ideas but most of Greece did not.
3 Likes
Yes, thank you. I also read it. Concerning his argument that Pyrrhonism (i.e. the thought attributed to Pyrrho) and Early Buddhism are essentially the same thing (Beckwith made that claim quite vigorously if I remember correcty) - I don’t know - but Pyrrho’s skepticism certainly has an early buddhist flavour to it. And it certainly does stand out as something novel and unique in Greek philosophy.
That may be but I have no way of following his train of thought here due to non-existent Chinese language skills. If someone was to conjure up some Latin or Greek sources, then that would really make my day. Actual textual references seem to be quite meagre, though.
1 Like
I don’t think he said they were the same thing, but that they definitely shared some features. He also argues that David Hume shares those features, and nobody is claiming David Hume is “essentially the same thing.” Besides, it wouldn’t be in the spirit of Hume, Pyrrho, or the Buddha to claim an essence, anyway! 
That may be but I have no way of following his train of thought here due to non-existent Chinese language skills.
The argument doesn’t require one to know Chinese; however, you probably would be helped with some understanding of the methods of comparative and historical linguisics. He romanizes the characters, especially as he’s dealing with earlier and earlier versions of Chinese where the writing system has remained consistent but the sound system (and word formation, syntax, etc.) evolved over time. But it’s not an easy argument to read if you don’t have a background in linguistics. I guess it’s best to just know “he thinks it was pronounced like the Buddha’s name” and just make an appeal to authority, bracket it, and move on! 
I actually think that he did say that 
. But my memory might not serve me right.
Yes, you’re absolutely right - essence is maybe the worst possible choice when talking about this particular philosphical strand 
I do have a background in linguistics , though my uni days are long over (and it was a minor) but when we’re talking reconstruction methods, I should be able to follow the argument at least partially. 
I don’t remember reading about it some years ago.
I remember the chapter on the three marks of existence and Beckwith claiming that Pyrrho’s characteristics of all (ethical) matters being a literal translation of them and that’s the one I found really intriguing.
So, thank you, you just sparked my interest of rereading the book. I’ll fish my copy out of the bookshelf and shall be commenting here if I find something interesting.
I actually think that he did say that
Well, does he claim that there’s a doctrine of Buddhahood in Pyrrho? Or that there’s a doctrine of karma? He clearly left those out. That’s why I don’t think Beckwith would claim that they are identical. But he still felt bold enough to call Pyrrho “Greek Buddha,” which has a charm. I think like Hume in Gopnik’s reading of him being influenced (very indirectly) by Buddha and Madhyamaka vis-à-vis Ippolito Desideri, Beckwith cannot claim they are identical, even though certain things (e.g., the three marks of existence, suspension of judgement, deployment of tetralemma or catuṣkoṭi, ἀταραξία/ataraxia & nirvana, etc.) are clearly very similar without being necessarily identical. But close enough to be evidence of a borrowing, I think that’s clear.
By the way, Beckwith was my thesis advisor (“The Morphophonology of the Old Tibetan Verb”) back during my first stint in graduate school. So I am completely biased because he’s an old friend. If you do have a very interesting question that comes up, let me know and I’ll forward it to him. I think he just retired (finally), so he should be free to handle our little queries!
Yes, I think this is precisely what he is getting at. He’s making an argument that Pyrrho’s thought is a form of Early Buddhism (or what he calls Pre-Normative Buddhism). No kamma, no N8P, nothing of the like. That’s all later, normative buddhism.
It is being without views and deeply understanding that things are adiaphora
or undifferentiated/without self-identity, astathmeta or unstable, not measurable and anepikrita or unjudged, unfixed (Beckwith p. 23 ff quoting the Aristocles Passage in Eusebius and again when dissecting the tripartite statement ) that one gains apatheia and then ataraxia - as you already pointed out.
I’ve been leafing though the book, trying to find quotes that support my “equating early Buddhism with Pyrrho’s Skepticism is exactly what Beckwith is doing” 
. The closest I came across was on p. 63: “[…] Pyrrho’s teaching and practices are thus […] attestations of Early Buddhism […]” He talks of attestations. That might not be him saying expressis verbis that they are identical (like equating it on a 1:1 basis) but it is more than just saying that they share some features, isn’t it?
Good to know - thanks. Or maybe just forwarding my apologies if I have put words in his mouth.
I haven’t had a chance to go through chapter 3 in which he talks about the Gautama - Laotzu business. That’ll be up next.
But anyway, Beckwith references Megasthenes and his “Indica”-fragment multiple times. I completely forgot about that. I think it wasn’t easily accessible but when seeking textual references that’s probably a good source.
1 Like
Well, I think saying “Xs are thus attestations of Y” is a far cry from saying “X and Y are identical.” 
I should just email and ask him if they thinks they are identical!
Good to know - thanks. Or maybe just forwarding my apologies if I have put words in his mouth.
No, you’re working out an interpretation of his work. That’s different, and what a good reader should do!
But anyway, Beckwith references Megasthenes and his “Indica”-fragment multiple times. I completely forgot about that. I think it wasn’t easily accessible but when seeking textual references that’s probably a good source.
There’s a surprisingly detailed Wikipedia article on it here. You might want to check that out.
1 Like
Yes 
- when I typed my response, I was thinking something along the lines that it might eventually boil down to the question of how we define “identical”, “similar” etc. To me saying that “Early Pyrrhonism is a Buddhist variety” implies a high degree of identity.
Thanks for the link 
1 Like
I agree. Have a great day or night, wherever you are!
Thanks, same to you! I have been enjoying this discussion.
Hi, just want to mention that Beckwith’s book received an overwhelming amount of criticism from the specialists in all disciplines Beckwith engages. Including his phonetical exercises.
Moreover, I believe his Ph.D. thesis was about the language family attribution of the Japanese language, where he concluded that Japanese is an isolate.
But a few renowned linguists, especially Anna Dybo, have compellingly demonstrated that Japanese belongs to the Altaic family, being a very early offshoot of it. The thesis Beckwith goes to war with.
So, I think, we should be very cautious in accepting any of Beckwith’s conclusions/theses.
Personally, I will be presenting at the IABS (International Association of Buddhist Studies) conference in Leipzig (Summer 2025) about the disservice Beckwith has done to cross-cultural and comparative studies.
1 Like
Hi, just want to mention that Beckwith’s book received an overwhelming amount of criticism from the specialists in all disciplines Beckwith engages.
It received some criticism. It was also highly praised by a number of other scholars. For example:
Matthew Neale’s review in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 79/1 (2016)
Jerker Blomqvist’s review in Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2016.02.32 (2016)
Robert M. Ellis’ review at the Middle Way Society (2015)
I know of others who praised it, such as Georgios T. Halkias (University of Hong Kong), Victor Mair (U. of Pennsylvania), Peter Golden (Rutgers University), and Justin E. H. Smith (Université Paris Diderot). It provoked a fierce debate, that’s true. That isn’t a reason to simply dismiss his argument without citing any of them. So to simply claim “overwhelming amount of criticism from the specialists in all disciplines” is itself misleading. Also, in the field of historical and comparative linguistics, I cannot think of single figure who doesn’t have fierce critics.
Including his phonetical exercises.
There are no phonetic arguments in his book. Historical linguistics works with phonological arguments. Phonetics and phonology are distinct, and historical linguistics employes phonological theory.
Moreover, I believe his Ph.D. thesis was about the language family attribution of the Japanese language, where he concluded that Japanese is an isolate.
Christopher Beckwith’s doctoral dissertation was A Study of the Early Medieval Chinese, Latin, and Tibetan Historical Sources on Pre-Imperial Tibet (1977). He followed that in 1987 with The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia: A History of the Struggle for Great Power among Tibetans, Turks, Arabs, and Chinese during the Early Middle Ages, for which he won the MacArthur Fellow or ‘Genius Grant’.
He did write a book on the Old Koguryo language in 2004, several decades after his doctoral dissertation. Old Koguryo was spoken on the Korean Peninsula in the middle ages. He argues that Old Koguryo was in fact a variant of Japanese, and not a form of Korean, and that therefore Japanese is not an isolate.
That is the exact opposite of your claim. However, that being said, most people working in East Asian linguistics outside of Russia consider both Korean and Japanese to be isolates.
But a few renowned linguists, especially Anna Dybo, have compellingly demonstrated that Japanese belongs to the Altaic family, being a very early offshoot of it. The thesis Beckwith goes to war with.
Almost nobody outside of Russian linguistics believes that there is an Altaic language family. The hypothesis has never had any strong influence, and it died in the 80s from lack of evidence and any real theory. Uralic is well attested. A Turkic family, Mongolic, and Tungusic are all well attested, but nobody has ever worked out anything close to a theory of Proto-Altaic. And the majority of researchers in Japanese linguistcs have rejected the claim that Japanese is an Altaic language, most likely because nobody outside of Russia is even pretending that Altaic is a thing anymore. To quote the Wikipedia article, " The once-popular theory attributing these similarities to a common ancestry has long been rejected by most comparative linguists in favor of language contact, although it continues to be supported by a small but stable scholarly minority. (You can see the article here.)
I imagine that Russian linguists are still invested in promoting an Altaic hypothesis sans theory because they champion the Nostratic hypothesis, another hypothesis that has virtually no support outside of Russia. So it goes.
The department where Chris Beckwith got his Ph.D, by the way, was originally the Department of Uralic and Altaic Studies, and he originally studied with European faculty who researched Uralic and Altaic linguistics. So he has a doctorate in Uralic and Altaic Studies. So, yeah, he’s familiar with it. That being said, they have since renamed the department (Central Eurasian Studies) precisely because of the death of the Altaic hypothesis among most linguists worldwide.
So, I think, we should be very cautious in accepting any of Beckwith’s conclusions/theses.
Seeing that you mixed up most of what he does, I think I will instead be cautious with your conclusions/theses.
Personally, I will be presenting at the IABS (International Association of Buddhist Studies) conference in Leipzig (Summer 2025) about the disservice Beckwith has done to cross-cultural and comparative studies.
You do that. I’m sure your attention to detail and command of the facts will have them jumping in their seats! I just wonder how you can have such a strong opinion about the ‘disservice’ he has done when you clearly haven’t bothered to read his work.
Having said that, I am not really interested in debating the merits of a revival of the Altaic hypothesis or the status of Japanese, or whether Beckwith has made mistakes etc. I simply pointed out that he made an interesting argument about possible attestation of the Buddha in 莊子 The Zhuangzi, and anyone can do anything they like with that information, including reading a paper on his work without having read his work. If you have an argument about why 老聃 couldn’t possible be reconstructed the way he has it, then you should make that argument. Otherwise, it’s not important. Whatever you decide to argue, that’s fine with me. But I am really not interested in arguing about this. Good luck.
1 Like