The historicity of the Buddha

Discussion
42

[quote=“Deeele”]In fact, Paul himself is gnostic: yet in a very subtle manner. ‘Christ’ for Paul appears often to be a state of mind[/quote]What is your definition of “gnostic” here that would lead you to think Christ/Heaven being a state of mind is Gnostic?

When dealing with Gnosticism and Gnostic Gospels, we are dealing with an expressly different religion: cosmic emanating aeons and archons (with names culled from every mystic tradition one could imagine), a cosmic demiurge in eternal battle with a mysterious distant Monad. These elements are worlds away from the simple and down to earth teachings of Early Christian literature and the latter literature which grew out of it and in continuity with it: “purify your noetic faculty, for the Kingdom of God exists in the here-and-now, presently in you” (he said in eccentric translation)

(original: Πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς, καὶ ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ. μετανοεῖτε, καὶ πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ.
Peplērōtai ho kairos, kai ēngiken hē basileia tou Theou. metanoeite, kai pisteuete en tō euangeliō.
Has-been-fulfilled the time, and has-drawn-near the kingdom of God; transform [your] noetic faculty and know this good news.), from canonical Gospel of John, not “early” literature, but based in and in continuity with earlier literature (unlike Gnostic Gospels).

2 Likes
43

Thanks for that, it very eye-opening! I read Pagel’s work years ago. It seems I should have been more careful.

1 Like
44

I don’t know much about it, apart from having read years ago Thomas, Apocryphon of James & that genre. They seem quite down to earth to me.

For example, what can more simple & straightforward than:

1. And he said, “Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death.”

2. Jesus said, “Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]”

3. Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, ‘Look, the (Father’s) kingdom is in the sky,’ then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, ‘It is in the sea,’ then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father’s) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.

When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

4. Jesus said, "The person old in days won’t hesitate to ask a little child seven days old about the place of life, and that person will live.

For many of the first will be last, and will become a single one."

5. Jesus said, "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you.

For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed. [And there is nothing buried that will not be raised.]"

6. His disciples asked him and said to him, “Do you want us to fast? How should we pray? Should we give to charity? What diet should we observe?”

Jesus said, “Don’t lie, and don’t do what you hate, because all things are disclosed before heaven. After all, there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed, and there is nothing covered up that will remain undisclosed.”

7. Jesus said, “Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human.”

77. Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained.

Split a piece of wood; I am there.

Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."

113. His disciples said to him, “When will the kingdom come?”

“It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, ‘Look, here!’ or ‘Look, there!’ Rather, the Father’s kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don’t see it.”

:fireworks:

45

[quote=“Deeele, post:44, topic:5804”]
I don’t know much about it, apart from having read years ago Thomas, Apocryphon of James & that genre. They seem quite down to earth to me.
[/quote]Well, if one were to take all of the down to earth elements of any religion one would have a picture of a down to earth set of teachings. One can take all of the survivals of the teaching attested to within EBTs that exist within contemporary or historical Mahāyāna, and not look at the Mahāyāna-specific innovative teachings, and conclude that Mahāyāna is “Early Buddhism”.

The issue taken with Gnosticism by early Christians are not related to these teachings, indeed I imagine most modern day Christians, let alone “early one”, have no issue with much of the quotations you present, it is related to the various other points I have brought up above, in addition to Christian-specific issues of metaphysical Christology/Theology.

46

When certain dhammas or teachings become clear in practice, these are the things a practitioner focuses on & uses to assess the other peripheral things.

When the nature of things becomes really manifest
To the ardent meditating brāhmaṇa,
Then all his doubts disappear,
Since he knows the nature of a thing and its cause.

Ud 1.1

In other words, there is no point discussing or debating the fairies, Santa Claus, etc, aspects of various religions.

Thus, when people say there is nothing much original in the teachings of Christ & his existence is irrelevant, this is pretty much the case from the viewpoint of practise.

The EBTs state: “by seeing the dhamma, the buddha is seen” (SN 22.87). Thus a Buddha (although not necessarily Gotama) existed. As soon as the 4NTs or 3Cs are verified to be true & real, the Buddha is verified as true & real.

Can the same be asserted for Christ? What actually is the spiritual embodiment of Christ so Christ can be verified to have existed beyond the belated historians such as Tacitus, etc, (whoever) that wrote about Jesus after hearing stories from others? Why only one or two historians belatedly if Jesus was like a Buddha? The EBTs state the good repute of the Buddha spread wide & far.

It was in Judea where Jesus allegedly performed miracles in front of thousands, such as the loaves & fishes. Yet it seems the Judean Jews were not so interested in Jesus, even though the propaganda of the Bible states the bumbling Peter was later able to heal the sickness of people merely with his shadow. There seems to be little or no correlation between the alleged supernormal public feats of Jesus & his poor local (Judean) popularity. Instead, the apostles & leaders were either alleged to be murdered in Judea (James & James) or fled into Europe (Peter, John, Paul) & even India (Thomas).

I suppose the point I am making is once Jesus is taken to be real, basically everything about him must be taken as real, such as rising from the dead, healing the blind, killing pigs & fig trees, turning water into wine, walking on water, calming storms, reattaching severed ears, etc.

Regards

47

[quote=“Deeele, post:46, topic:5804”]
When certain dhammas or teachings become clear in practice, these are the things a practitioner focuses on & uses to assess the other peripheral things.
[/quote]Well, the people of the time felt that these extra innovative beliefs sufficiently differentiated Gnostic practitioners from Christian practitioners in how they thought of the teacher, the path, and the goal (to frame it from the outside), as well as basic different beliefs about reality itself, existence, the relation of the soul to God, how salvation is attained (this is very important!), that it constituted a departure from the teachings of Jesus into something else.

We’re really only talking about Christian Gnosticism here. Gnosticism itself predates Christianity, and what we are talking about here is a particular flourishing of a few particular disunified Gnostic wisdom traditions in a syncretic Christian framework.

For instance, many Gnostic sects believed in predestination, and “innate salvation” irrespective of morality and action. This is unacceptable from a orthodox POV.

I am also not trying to defend the persecution of the Gnostics. That is one of the endless tragedies of the uncivilized history of civilization.

EDIT: I must have seen an earlier draft of the original or something.[quote=“Deeele, post:46, topic:5804”]
Can the same be asserted for Christ? What actually is the spiritual embodiment of Christ so Christ can be verified to have existed beyond the belated historians such as Tacitus, etc, (whoever) that wrote about Jesus after hearing stories from others?
[/quote]You would have to talk to Christian mystics or something, if you want to find someone who claims to have found something of the endgoal of Christian practice, seeing Christ.

48

It is quite possible to recognize the historicity of some figure without believing all of the legends that grew up around him.

For example, it is easy to believe the wandering ascetic Gotama existed and taught the four noble truths without believing that he magically teletransported himself across rivers.

49

Didn’t Augustine believe in predestination? That seems quite orthodox.

50

That particular doctrine of Augustine’s (who, suffice to say, is late, and contemporary to the Gnostic sects which also held this doctrine) is heavily disputed, and was in his day as well. The traditional Catechism of the Catholic Church (the only Christian denomination, albeit a large one, who venerates St. Augustine) rejects this (I think), but I’ll have to go searching for the passage.

51

[quote=“DKervick, post:48, topic:5804”]
It is quite possible to recognize the historicity of some figure without believing all of the legends that grew up around him.
[/quote]This is very important, and relates to the caveated option 2) presented in the OP:[quote]2) many historical characters “converged” into one (this is not as ridiculous an idea as it may seem, both “Christ” and “Buddha” were titles for people before “the” Christ and “the” Buddha came to be exclusively associated with the words).

To me, if either of these is the case, it seems that 2) is more reasonable, but even then, it still makes sense for these figures to have been substantially based on one particular figure among the many and other teachings were gradually attributed to them, rather than a whole body of teachings arising naturally via societal exchange without any actual teaching (but ineffably with the shared common mythology of a “real teacher” in the past? It just seems to unlikely)[/quote]Furthermore, it is far more likely that one particular teacher among the theoretical many serves as a substantial basis for the entire composite construction.

52

whats the point of this? to start fight? if you want drama go to reddit.

53

[quote=“roosbugg, post:52, topic:5804, full:true”]
whats the point of this? to start fight? if you want drama go to reddit.
[/quote]The intentions of the OP were clear from the start (and were clarified twice). What people want to discuss is another matter.

I can clarify again.

This thread is to collect responses (preferably well reasoned ones) to doubts of a historical Buddha, which is a very real sentiment wide in the world, inside the academy as well as outside, which substantially intersects with the study of EBTs, as such narratives stand in opposition to narratives origination from within the field.

54

A mystic cannot explain much beyond what is already known. The highest Biblical Christian path is metta bhavana or Brahma Vihara.

Regards :slightly_smiling_face:

Just, Vāseṭṭha, as a mighty trumpeter makes himself heard—and that without difficulty—in all the four directions; even so of all things that have shape or life, there is not one that he passes by or leaves aside, but regards them all with mind set free, and deep-felt love. Verily this, Vāseṭṭha, is the way to a state of union with Brahmā (The Father of The All). DN 13

John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

1 John 4:8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

55

[quote=“Dhammanando,
post:27, topic:5804, full:true”]

…
a soundbite every two or three minutes from some well-known and highly regarded scientist (or in the present case, academic biblical scholar). To an uncritical viewer it creates the illusion that the movie-makers are an honest bunch of guys who are sincerely trying to get at the truth…[/quote]

I did watch the whole video (it’s actually a feature length film). Enchanting music and cinematography (agreeing with Deeele as to “watchability”), and articulate, flatteringly presented “authorities”. However… the cited and interviewed “authorities”, repeatedly referred to as “our scholars”, consist of someone at Long Beach State University (a Southern California teachers’ college, essentially), one “Dr.” at La Trobe University (from cursory googling, seemingly a respected Australian higher-educational franchise, but little indication of world-class scholarly excellence), and 4 others – non of which I would consider “highly regarded scientists / scholars”; rather “well-known” in the sense of perhaps infamy, possibly well-intentioned but exploiting non-mainstream viewpoints as likely a way of gaining attention – popular attention that is, as it’s noticeably absent from the side of mainstream respected scholars.

[quote=“DKervick,
post:24, topic:5804, full:true”]
It seems like one of those ancient astronaut-style fake archaeology pieces. I’ve watched 40 minutes now, and so far not a speck of evidence has been presented for their alternative Flavian conspiracy hypothesis. [/quote]

Later on they do present an extensive (though highly repetitive), even s/w fascinating comparison of seemingly parallel ECT and Roman “historical facts” – like the whole film, in a way entertaining, but from a scholarly viewpoint remarkably bogus when examined in detail. For instance, the mention of the “Dead Sea Scrolls” is sheer name-dropping; zero substance. They even mention how ambiguous, hidden, difficult delving into that “evidence” is (which I suspect none of them would be capable of doing).

And deserving of attention are the especially entertaining uplifting moments near the end:

“The destruction of the planet is also directly tied to religious ideas…”

“The survival of humanity depends on viewing history from a new perspective” [i.e. that of “our scholars”, amounting to a] “paradigm shift being witnessed all around the world today that can lead to a more enlightened humanity tomorrow…” Hallelujah!

Then too some bashing of evangelical Christians, quite in line with an underlying theme throughout the whole movie: militaristic violence. The preoccupation with fundamentalist extremes, as often, reflects a degree of thought at the same level as their antagonists – like the phenomenon where “skeptic” scientists become pre-occupied with their religious antagonists, which betrays a degree of religiosity in that kind of scientific viewpoint itself.

Then follow the film credits – on and on but consisting of just a handful of repeated names (Atwill, Spatrkis, Heede, Maldonado), responsible for the research, direction, production, narration, music, cinematography, … everything. Admittedly a pretty talented bunch.

1 Like
56

[quote=“Coemgenu, post:38, topic:5804, full:true”]

[quote=“cjmacie, post:37, topic:5804”]
Or perhaps just read the Wikipedia article on “Gnosticism”, which cites her research in various areas of the field some half-dozen times.
[/quote]I am very sorry but I do not consider her at all qualified to be engaging in the work she does …[/quote]

Thanks for all the information. The overall thrust of your thread I found worthwhile (starting back at DhammaWheel), aside from some question as to why re-framing the title mid-stream, when the Christ issue was already so heavily entrenched, no less with your extensive tangent re the Christian &/vs Gnosticism issue.

I had mentioned the writings of Elaine Pagels as a good study in the issue of the origins and evolution of, basically, the “New Testament” (see also her most recent book, “Revelations”), and stand by that recommendation.

Apologies for having awakened your academic dark-side instincts – your and Paul Mankowski’s perceived need to pursue what amounts to academic character-assassination. There are viewpoints from which to criticize any work of scholarship, which can be expressed and discussed in a manner focusing on sources and interpretations, which in all cases reflect interpretative slants and oversights due to human limitations and fallibility. When the discussion stoops to persistent ad hominem accusations and innuendos, there should be little wonder that such positioning is less acknowledged (popular, if you will), in both academic and more general cultural circles.

Carry on your manifesto, if you must, but perhaps in better in a thread of it’s own; in which case relevance to SuttaCentral might also be an issue. As so far presented, I would be hard put to consider it as arising in the spirit of “safe and friendly” discussion.

57

Augustine’s views might be disputed, but less so than the doctrine of Pelagianism, which is designated a heresy.

The Catholic Church has never provided a compelling resolution to the severe tensions inherent in its doctrines. They teach that all events have been ordained by God from eternity, even the ones that depend on “free will”.

There were several clever attempts during the counter-reformation to try to square the circle, but I don’t think any of them really resolve the underlying problem. So the Council of Trent just declared the whole matter a mystery.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

58

Yes, but throughout the EBTs, “the Buddha” is not the most common label for their central character. It seems to me he is more often referred to as the samaṇo gotamo, or the bhagavā.

But I do think it is possible that early on, Gotama was regarded as one Buddha, while it was accepted there had been other Buddhas in the past, whose names were recalled. Later, in order to heighten the importance of Gotama, these other Buddhas were gradually re-classified as lesser paccekabuddhas, or displaced in time as supreme buddhas who had lived in entirely different kalpas.

It is also possible that some of the literature of the canon, especially some verses, were a wisdom literature that had originated earlier, and that the Buddha had himself learned them from the various teachers he encountered in his early years of travel.

The EBTs present several discourses that are explicitly disciples such as Ananda, Sariputta, Moggalana, Kassapa or Dhammadinna. So the transmitters of the tradition seem to have thought it was important to distinguish Gotama’s own teachings from those of even his closest associates. That doesn’t mean that they alwasy get it exactly right, and doesn’t rule out some convergence. But it does suggest that the sangha and its oral tradition trace back to one preeminent teacher, of whom the others regarded themselves as followers, and whose personal teachings were distinguished from those of others in the tradition.

Given the amount of prosaic narrative detail in the EBT, about both the Buddha and the many individuals he comes in contact with, and given what we know from other examples in world history about how powerful and world-altering religious movements tend to begin, it seems to me the most plausible hypothesis about the origin of Buddhism is the one its bountiful oral tradition represents in abundant detail: the movement originated in the teachings and other acts of a revered and extremely charismatic teacher who acquired a large number of devoted followers forming a community around him, and who then launched a dedicated effort to preserve his teachings and disciplines after his death.

59

[quote=“DKervick, post:58, topic:5804”]
Yes, but throughout the EBTs, “the Buddha” is not the most common label for their central character. It seems to me he is more often referred to as the samaṇo gotamo, or the bhagavā.
[/quote]Indeed, but these titles, samaṇo and bhagavā (gotamo is more unique, further weakening argumentation for a completely or mostly composite character) also, like Buddha, predates “the” Bhavagān, if one will (does Tathāgata? that may well be an “originally Buddhist” title? the Jains may well have a similar title for their sages, I would not know). This leaves the option 2) presented in the OP available as a speculative inquiry that I suspect people will always be making (much like that made over other figures, Socrates, Shakespeare, etc, and as demonstrated by this thread, Jesus of Nazareth), but, in a way, the Buddha is “composite” in a certain way, we can identify historical layers of testament to the Buddha, not of all originate at the time, that in and of itself means a certain amount of “Buddha composition” is at work.

In the EBTs, we surely have a much less “composite” Buddha than when looking at Buddhist literature without distinguishing between EBTs and non-EBTs, I don’t think its too much to say that much, even by the most unreasonably critical reasonings.

60

I don’t get the analogy with Led Zeppelin. Their music was awesome and original, no?

(Sorry for the off topic! :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:)

1 Like
61

[quote=“Gabriel_L, post:60, topic:5804, full:true”]

I don’t get the analogy with Led Zeppelin. Their music was awesome and original, no?

(Sorry for the off topic! :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:)
[/quote]I think it’s safe to say they were awesome and often original, but there are some pretty interesting YouTube videos out there that show how closely they were willing to imitate another’s style, songs, etc (without paying them!).

Extending this to Christianity is just another instance of Buddhist forum Christian bashing (an endlessly popular pastime on Buddhist Internet forums, it seems to me, from facts and experience, why I cannot say, perhaps there is nothing more anti- than an ex-, but I’ll never understand what makes someone feel like they can make up all of this nonsense just because they don’t “like” Christianity, for whatever reason, maybe Christians have starting going around stealing lollipops and everyone’s left shoe and only I’m out of the loop? I couldn’t guess).

1 Like