Historical Evidence for the Buddha

[Javier]

Yes, it does sometimes seem like we are being propangandised here with these barrage of Mahayana quotes by this individual. Fortunately it’s pretty obvious that these later teachings are quite a different kettle of fish from the EBTs, and trying to map them to them can be like fitting a square peg etc.

The ancient Mahayana Buddhists were obviously aware of this too, they weren’t naive enough to not understand the disconnect doctrinally and historically. This is why they had to create myths like the nagas hiding the mahayana sutras, the myth of the three turnings and revelatory stories like the Maitreya Asanga myth. East Asian Buddhists also created the panchiao systems as a way to resolve the contradictions introduced by all these new texts , hierarchically placing sutras they liked at the top while placing the EBT material at the bottom as “hinayana”, thereby obscuring the earliest textual material. In the Indo Tibetan material, the situation is even more dire, EBTs are simply not studied at all, and whatever is left is a few texts which somehow survived the ravages of time.

Ultimately the kind of attitude that priviliges the novel, the more exciting and the flashier doctrines over the more subdued and subtle teachings of the Buddha is something we have to deal with. But thankfully suttacentral is an oasis from this.

[thenoble]

@Javier Early Mahayana texts weren’t actually even called “sutra”, they were called “vedulla/vaitulya” which mean “irregular” (the term weren’t considered in a negative way by the early Mahayana Buddhists, but still).

It is as you said, ancient Mahayana Buddhists were well aware that their new texts were (and always have been) different from and later than the Agamas and the Pali Nikayas. Hence, the original designation of their early Mahayana texts as vedulla/vaitulya (irregular).

I didn’t know that the early discourses are not studied in Tibetan Buddhism, that’s really unfortunate. I sometimes watch Tibetan Buddhist teachings on a youtube channel by a Tibetan monk, and another by an American Buddhist nun who practises Tibetan Buddhism since I’m curious about what they (Tibetan Buddhist monastics) usually teach. They seem to know about some of the early teachings (especially the Tibetan monk), so I thought that the early discourses were studied alongside their main texts, even if it’s just a little.

[Javier]

I practice in a TB Sangha, so let me be clear of what I am saying here.

I am not saying that basic teachings like four Noble truths, 8 fold path etc are not present in TB, they absolutely are and their perspective is as valuable as that it any other tradition.

But what I am saying is that they do not study these teachings by using EBT material, rather they use much later texts like the Abhidharmakosha of Vasubandhu and the Yogacarabhumi.

Hopefully here in the West there can be a rediscovery of the earliest teachings among those who no longer study them. This is why I see suttacentral as so important, especially for traditions which have lost the tradition of studying these early texts.

[thenoble]

@Javier Yes, that is what I meant: that the Tibetan Buddhist monastics learn the early, fundamental teachings from later texts, not from the early discourses themselves.

[Viveka]

Dear @Kensho, indeed this post is off topic. If you’d like to discuss these issues further I suggest you start a new thread. We can either move a number of the posts from this thread, or you can just link them.

Thanking you in anticipation of your assistance in this matter

Metta

[Viveka]

This might be of interest in looking at the development and evolution of buddhist texts. It uses the Diamond Cutter Sutta as an example.

https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/the-diamond-cutter-sutra/7144/12

[Kensho]

@thenoble

The historical Buddha taught impermanence and nonself, the doctrine of Dharma-body has no place in his teachings since it clearly contradicts impermanence and nonself…

Whenever Dharma-body is referred to as “the true self,” that’s a provisional figure of speech, not the ultimate truth.

While all conditioned things are impermanent, that doesn’t refer to the unconditioned. The Dharmakaya, like Nirvana, is unconditioned, and the two are closely related to each other.

From the beginning of Buddhism, it’s been understood that one takes refuge in the Dharma-body of a Buddha, rather than in his gross physical form:

Enough, Vakkali! What is there to see in this vile body? He who sees Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma.
Vakkali Sutta: Vakkali

He whose faith in the Tathagata is settled, rooted, established, solid, unshakeable by any ascetic or Brahmin, any deva or mara or Brahma or anyone in the world, can truly say: “I am a true son of Blessed Lord, born of his mouth, born of Dhamma, created by Dhamma, an heir of Dhamma.” Why is that? Because, Vasettha, this designates the Tathagata: “The Body of Dhamma”…
http://www.palicanon.org/en/sutta-pitaka/transcribed-suttas/majjhima-nikaya/142-mn-88-bhitika-sutta-the-cloak.html#calibre_link-893

When Pure Land Buddhists, through the Nembutsu, take refuge in Amida Buddha, they are taking refuge in the Dharma-body, rather than in a literal historical person who attained Buddhahood galaxies away, eons before the Big Bang.

Shinran Shonin referred to Amida Buddha as “Dharmakaya-as-upaya,” making the point that Amida, the Pure Land, and the Nembutsu are a skillful device (upaya) for Ultimate Truth to make itself known and complete its work of leading all beings to enlightenment.

[Nadine]

Hi @Kensho,
This thread has veered from the original topic pretty far. If you would like to discuss these ideas further, I suggest starting a separate thread.

[Kerta]

What really interesting is that, the Hindu gods are always depicted in the unique and unusual physical forms, such as many-headed, many-handed, blue-skinned or other unique features. When compared with the Buddha’s description in the early days of Buddhism, there was no such unusual characteristic which associated with the physical appearance of the Buddha, ( although there are the 32 signs of a Great Man which are described throughout the Pali Canon and also supplemented by another 80 secondary characteristics ), but as a whole on the portrayal of the physical form of Buddha in sculptures, it looks very normal and just like an ordinary human being. But I think, whether or not there is a historical Buddha named Siddhartha Gautama does not really matter. The Buddha was not a god, he was not a messenger from a god, he was just a human. Buddhism does not call on its followers to worship the Buddha ( or anything, for that matter), so one does not have to worry about whether or not he really existed. Even if he did not exist, the teachings that he supposedly taught are still here. It is kind of similar to how the Buddha responded to his disciples when they questioned whether there was a God or not. Essentially, he refused to answer the question, because it doesn’t make any difference. They’d still all be in the same situation, facing the same life, with the same problems…

[Gabriel]

@Kerta

What really interesting is that, the Hindu gods are always depicted in the unique and unusual physical forms, such as many-headed, many-handed, blue-skinned or other unique features.

From which time are these images? And from which time are the images of the Buddha? It is safe to say that any image of the Buddha had nothing to do with his actual appearance and therefore doesn’t touch the topic of historical evidence.

@Kerta

It is kind of similar to how the Buddha responded to his disciples when they questioned whether there was a God or not. Essentially, he refused to answer the question, because it doesn’t make any difference.

The Gods are literally everywhere in the suttas. Just a tiny example is the widespread pericope of…

…in this world with its devas, Mara, and Brahma, in this generation with its ascetics and brahmins, its devas and humans.

To turn the Buddha into some sort of agnostic psychologist is a pet project of the West, but it’s really time to put it to rest and take the suttas for what they are.

@Kerta

Essentially, he refused to answer the question, because it doesn’t make any difference.

Brahmins offered sacrificial food to devas as ‘fields of merit’ - the Buddha adviced his lay followers to replace the devas with the sangha. It’s not worship, but it borders it. Actually this redirection of offerings makes historical Buddhism (if not the Buddha) more authentic at it acknowledges the practice of that time

[Kerta]

The ancient statues of Brahma god and Shiva god compared to the Buddha, see the difference ?..

[Kerta]

What I want to emphasize here is, perhaps nobody will ever debate whether Brahma or Shiva is a historical figure that ever exists history, but that is different from the Buddha. Perhaps a more humanistic portrayal might serve as a clue that, the Buddha was indeed a historical figure and unlike imaginative gods…

[Gabriel]

@Kerta

perhaps nobody will ever debate whether Brahma or Shiva is a historical figure

I wouldn’t bet on it, maybe a hundred Million of the 1.3 Billion Indians would disagree. The Krishna of the Bhagavadgita for example is mostly quite human.

@Kerta

Perhaps a more humanistic portrayal might serve as a clue that, the Buddha was indeed a historical figure and unlike imaginative gods

Again, this is our image, not the image that the suttas portray. It’s like painting Jesus as if he was a white dude.

Here btw is Avalokiteshvara Buddha… Images and statues don’t prove anything

[Kerta]

If that so…, then we’re really ( totally ) have no clue to know whether the Buddha really ever lived in this world or is it just a fictional figure unless we have a time machine to go back in time ?..

[Gabriel]

@Kerta

no clue to know whether the Buddha really ever lived in this world…

Depending on what you mean with ‘the Buddha’. It’s really not an easy question. What to do with the supernatural powers for example, and all the conversations with devas and maras? And the claims that there is no higher being in the universe?

It’s simple to reject all of this and to project the images that we have of a diligent wise peaceful monk on to the historical Buddha. Others go the other way and take the suttas with all the supernatural features literally. A few researchers dismiss all historical claims. Again others take recourse to textual studies and try to identify ‘authentic’ and ‘inauthentic’ texts. There is no simple scientific solution.

While personally I am convinced that there was a Buddha, I rather play around with different possibilities of which aspects could be authentic or not.

[Kerta]

We know that supernatural claims are also ‘owned’ or at least ‘admittedly owned’ by other religious founders, right ?. Some people believes that, but some others don’t.

Think of it as a counter-features parallel to claims in other religions. For the believers, they might consider that supernatural power do exist, but if they don’t believe it, it doesn’t matter also…

[ERose]

@Gabriel

To turn the Buddha into some sort of agnostic psychologist is a pet project of the West

Evidence of this, please; there are Westerners in this forum. Additionally, if you want to look at Mindfulness movement, please note, some of its founders were not Westerners.

What good does this (… i guess it is an accusation?) serve? Friend, this is mental poison; perhaps our attention could be better spent. If you want to attack the idea, do that, without painting many with a broad brush.

[ERose]

Actually, almost forensic examination of both buddhist and other contemporary texts can reveal quite a lot. Perhaps this is circumstantial evidence… but that can be better than an eyewitness (as eyewitness accounts are demonstratably inaccurate and non static).

[Kerta]

At least…, the Great King Ashoka, an Indian emperor of the Maurya Dynasty, who ruled almost all of the Indian subcontinent from 268 to 232 BCE ( the time distance which is closer to the estimated era of the Buddha, compared to our time ), which also promoted the spread of Buddhism, he never doubted the existence of the Buddha as a real figure…

[Gabriel]

@ERose

Evidence of this, please; there are Westerners in this forum.

This wasn’t meant as an accusation or insult. When I write “the West” I obviously don’t mean “each and every Westener” but a discourse. The perception of discourses is subjective, so I don’t know what you would accept as ‘evidence’?

The wikipedia page on Secular Buddhism for example shows a ‘western’ discourse.

To give you myself an example to show the opposite: The Theosophical Society of the 19th along with the odd fascination with Tantrism in the 20th century are mostly Western romantizations of “the spiritual East”.

Batchelor, Kabat-Zinn, etc. are not random figures on the philosophical landscape. And their popularity in the West (if I may call Europe, North-America and Australia and a few other countries that) is neither random.