Historicity of Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha

Cypress

Well-known member
Wiki: The ancient Indians were generally unconcerned with chronologies, being more focused on philosophy. Buddhist texts reflect this tendency.

British author Karen Armstrong writes that although there is very little information that can be considered historically sound, we can be reasonably confident that Siddhārtha Gautama did exist as a historical figure.

Scholars are hesitant to make claims about the historical facts of the Buddha's life. Most of them accept that the Buddha lived, taught, and founded a monastic order during the Mahajanapada, and during the reign of Bimbisara.

There is less consensus on the veracity of many details contained in traditional biographies.

The earliest versions of Buddhist biographical texts that we have already contain many supernatural, mythical, or legendary elements. In the 19th century, some scholars simply omitted these from their accounts of the life, so that "the image projected was of a Buddha who was a rational, socratic teacher—a great person perhaps, but a more or less ordinary human being". More recent scholars tend to see such demythologisers as remythologisers, "creating a Buddha that appealed to them, by eliding one that did not".






My commentary: The secularization of the Buddha seems to have coincided with the fascination with Buddhism among San Francisco beatniks, Hollywood movie stars, urban hipsters because they presumably want to pursue meaningful self-actualization in life, but stripped of any religious context.
 
Although there is no conclusive evidence for any specific date, most current scholars locate the Buddha’s life around the fifth century B.C.E. The historical Buddha did not write down any of his teachings, they were passed down orally from generation to generation for at least three centuries.

The events of his life are largely legendary, but he is considered an actual historical figure and a younger contemporary of Mahavira (also known as Vardhamana, l. c. 599-527 BCE) who established the tenets of Jainism shortly before Siddhartha's time.



https://iep.utm.edu/buddha/
https://www.worldhistory.org/Siddhartha_Gautama/
 
Wiki: The ancient Indians were generally unconcerned with chronologies, being more focused on philosophy. Buddhist texts reflect this tendency.

British author Karen Armstrong writes that although there is very little information that can be considered historically sound, we can be reasonably confident that Siddhārtha Gautama did exist as a historical figure.

Scholars are hesitant to make claims about the historical facts of the Buddha's life. Most of them accept that the Buddha lived, taught, and founded a monastic order during the Mahajanapada, and during the reign of Bimbisara.

There is less consensus on the veracity of many details contained in traditional biographies.

The earliest versions of Buddhist biographical texts that we have already contain many supernatural, mythical, or legendary elements. In the 19th century, some scholars simply omitted these from their accounts of the life, so that "the image projected was of a Buddha who was a rational, socratic teacher—a great person perhaps, but a more or less ordinary human being". More recent scholars tend to see such demythologisers as remythologisers, "creating a Buddha that appealed to them, by eliding one that did not".






My commentary: The secularization of the Buddha seems to have coincided with the fascination with Buddhism among San Francisco beatniks, Hollywood movie stars, urban hipsters because they presumably want to pursue meaningful self-actualization in life, but stripped of any religious context.
It's not unusual for human cultures from 2500 years ago to mix fact with mysticism. Burning bushes, fire tornadoes and cities being destroyed for being sinful are in the Old Testament, along with stories of turning water into wine and raising the dead in the New Testament.
 
It's not unusual for human cultures from 2500 years ago to mix fact with mysticism. Burning bushes, fire tornadoes and cities being destroyed for being sinful are in the Old Testament, along with stories of turning water into wine and raising the dead in the New Testament.
It's definitely possible that Moses, Gilgamesh, King Arthur were historical people that later stories were loosely based on.
 
It's definitely possible that Moses, Gilgamesh, King Arthur were historical people that later stories were loosely based on.
I think it's very likely. It's a mixture of the game of "Telephone" when it comes to campfire stories and the fact that stories become better with repeated telling. :)

The important part for me isn't the historical accuracy of the story, but the lessons the story tell and teach.
 
I think it's very likely. It's a mixture of the game of "Telephone" when it comes to campfire stories and the fact that stories become better with repeated telling. :)

The important part for me isn't the historical accuracy of the story, but the lessons the story tell and teach.
Agreed.
A lot of human knowledge and human values comes from story and myth. Relatively very few people are actually reading Nietzsche, Kant, and Aristotle.

There is a theory about Greek mythology that Achilles, Odysseus, Agamemnon as literary figures represent dim memories of important Greek war lords who lived in the archaic age of Greece.
 
Agreed.
A lot of human knowledge and human values comes from story and myth. Relatively very few people are actually reading Nietzsche, Kant, and Aristotle.

There is a theory about Greek mythology that Achilles, Odysseus, Agamemnon as literary figures represent dim memories of important Greek war lords who lived in the archaic age of Greece.
I wouldn't doubt that theory. Unless it's a totally mythological story like Zeus or Odin, I think all human heroes, no matter how mythologized, probably have a basis in fact. This includes, of course, both Jesus and Siddhartha.
 
I have no problem with Cypress starting threads. At least he is doing something.

OH, I agree. Precisely because he knows SO LITTLE about pretty much everything he HAS to use WIki and be a frantic Googler. That way he stumbles on interesting topics his normally dim understanding would keep him from finding.

But his frantic googling and his reliance on Google AI (truly ignorant) usually just runs the thread into the ground.

I just think the shit he piles on people for "frantic googling" is sick given how often HE frantically googles.
 
I wouldn't doubt that theory. Unless it's a totally mythological story like Zeus or Odin, I think all human heroes, no matter how mythologized, probably have a basis in fact. This includes, of course, both Jesus and Siddhartha.
There might be a kernel of truth to the story of the Bodi tree, although it became surrounded by legend and myth.

One thing that makes some parts of the Hebrew Bible have the ring of authenticity is how many terrible kings and people are spoken about in the Old Testament. Nobody in antiquity set out to write embarrassing things about their own people. No Israelite priest or scribe would have made David and Solomon be so flawed and unappealing, unless they were writing about real people. So I don't think David is completely legendary .
 
There might be a kernel of truth to the story of the Bodi tree, although it became surrounded by legend and myth.

One thing that makes some parts of the Hebrew Bible have the ring of authenticity is how many terrible kings and people are spoken about in the Old Testament. Nobody in antiquity set out to write embarrassing things about their own people. No Israelite priest or scribe would have made David and Solomon be so flawed and unappealing, unless they were writing about real people. So I don't think David is completely legendary .
Agreed on David. It goes back to the theory that all human figures, no matter how mythologized, have a basis in fact.

Good point about reporting the history, warts and all.
 
Wiki is for people who know nothing about a topic.
It's a good basic starting point to get a discussion going, and everything I sourced from wiki is widely known and corroborated. It comports with everything I have read about Siddhartha.

It also confirms a basic fact I've observed in everyday experience: the American Hollywood stars and urban hipsters have tried to strip away the mystical and religious aspects of Buddhism, and they've tried to turn the Buddha into some kind of secular teacher of wisdom and tranquility
 
It's a good basic starting point to get a discussion going, and everything I sourced from wiki is widely known and corroborated. It comports with everything I have read about Siddhartha.

It also confirms a basic fact I've observed in everyday experience: the American Hollywood stars and urban hipsters have tried to strip away the mystical and religious aspects of Buddhism, and they've tried to turn the Buddha into some kind of secular teacher of wisdom and tranquility
Agreed. Along with Wiki, I like Britannica. In Wiki, it's important to check the linked references or simply Google any salient facts stated on the Wiki page.

Hollyweird isn't called weird for nuthin'. Scientology is big out there too. LOL

Still, the fact that modern peoples are drifting away from dogmatic religions while still retaining a spiritual nature is interesting to me.

Zen is an excellent philosophy. Still, I think a lot can be learned from all ancient human cultures. Especially the major ones.
 
Agreed. Along with Wiki, I like Britannica. In Wiki, it's important to check the linked references or simply Google any salient facts stated on the Wiki page.

Hollyweird isn't called weird for nuthin'. Scientology is big out there too. LOL

Still, the fact that modern peoples are drifting away from dogmatic religions while still retaining a spiritual nature is interesting to me.

Zen is an excellent philosophy. Still, I think a lot can be learned from all ancient human cultures. Especially the major ones.
Britannica is a good trustworthy source to lay out the basic groundwork for a discussion.

Agreed.

I don't know a lot about Zen other than it is a discipline focused on meditation and self awareness.
 
Britannica is a good trustworthy source to lay out the basic groundwork for a discussion.

Agreed.

I don't know a lot about Zen other than it is a discipline focused on meditation and self awareness.
A lot of Zen is just being "present". Living in the now. Nike adopted a very Zen-like slogan with "just do it".

It's not about being impulsive, but acting with confidence and preciseness.
 
It's not unusual for human cultures from 2500 years ago to mix fact with mysticism. Burning bushes, fire tornadoes and cities being destroyed for being sinful are in the Old Testament, along with stories of turning water into wine and raising the dead in the New Testament.
il_570xN.2633313765_6yd2.jpg
God spoke to Moses through a Burn Bush
 
Back
Top