Buddhist No historically credible texts

[mindlight]

If the Buddha existed and books were written about his life and teachings by people who would have a definite knowledge of these, how can we demonstrate any historical link between these writings and the life of the Buddha?

How come there are so many contradictions between the different Buddhist traditions? To the point in fact that no original idea of what he actually taught seems to exist.

How come the texts we have about the Buddha date centuries after the supposed life of the man? How can they be considered historically credible given this distance?

It seems that there is no historical credibility to this way of life.

https://carm.org/the-historical-reliability-of-jesus-and-buddha
http://www.humanreligions.info/buddhism_criticism.html

 

[Barney2.0]

Bhuddism isn’t really meant to be a religion anymore then philosophy is, Bhuddism really just is a philosophical way to look at life and the supernatural. I don’t view it as a religion comparable to say Judaism or Christianity.

 

[mindlight]

Bhuddism isn’t really meant to be a religion anymore then philosophy is, Bhuddism really just is a philosophical way to look at life and the supernatural. I don’t view it as a religion comparable to say Judaism or Christianity.

Good point religion requires a response to the Divine and there is none in the Buddhist way of life. Yet it holds the souls of millions of people in its grasp so there is a religious significance to it. It holds people from God rather than revealing Him to them.

 

[ananda]

If the Buddha existed and books were written about his life and teachings by people who would have a definite knowledge of these, how can we demonstrate any historical link between these writings and the life of the Buddha?

We cannot know for sure. In any case, historical links are irrelevant in terms of early Buddhism.

How come there are so many contradictions between the different Buddhist traditions? To the point in fact that no original idea of what he actually taught seems to exist.

There are suggestions in the early Buddhist canon that false Dhamma would arise ~500 years after the passing of the Buddha. This seems to be the case to me, as Mahayana supposedly arose around that time period.

How come the texts we have about the Buddha date centuries after the supposed life of the man?

The disciples who reached the consummate goal - the Arahants - supposedly perfected themselves to the point where they achieved the iddhi of the "divine eye/ear", which allows them to observe the past for themselves as if they were there, just as we can observe things around us in the present with our mundane eyes & ears. With the divine eye/ear, they are said to be able to recall the Buddha's past words as if they were there witnessing them in person. Supposedly, some of these Arahants recorded the Dhamma in written form as the Buddha-sasana (500 years) was coming to an end, in order to preserve as much of it as possible so it wouldn't be completely lost.

How can they be considered historically credible given this distance?

Its historical credibility cannot be certain, nor directly & personally verified, until we ourselves achieve the divine eye & ear to witness these things for ourselves. However, when I read the early canon, I hear one voice through all of the thousands of suttas, so I have no problem believing that they truly originated from one mind.

It seems that there is no historical credibility to this way of life.

https://carm.org/the-historical-reliability-of-jesus-and-buddha
http://www.humanreligions.info/buddhism_criticism.html

"Historical credibility" is the wrong question to apply to Buddhism.

The Buddhist Way - as I understand it - is not based on any alleged traceable historical credibility, but on personal applicability in the here-and-now. Historical credibility is only a question applicable to religions which requires that their disciples maintain a faith in the actuality of non-personally-observable historical events. This is not the case for early Buddhism.

All of the ancient Buddhist stories - e.g. about the Buddha's life - could very well be false and possess zero historical credibility, but it still wouldn't really affect much, since the practicable teachings ascribed to "Buddhism" 1. answers questions to my satisfaction like no other religion/philosophy, and 2. those teachings are personally verifiable, to be "seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be experienced by the observant for themselves" (the teachings - the Dhamma - is frequently described in these terms in the Buddhist canon).

To borrow CARM's words, "Our confidence in the applicability and verifiability of the Buddha-Dhamma rests on a foundation that is simply without comparison."

 

[ananda]

Good point religion requires a response to the Divine and there is none in the Buddhist way of life. Yet it holds the souls of millions of people in its grasp so there is a religious significance to it. It holds people from God rather than revealing Him to them.

IMO, what "God" represents is the polar opposite to what the Buddha represents.

 

[ubicaritas]

I don't think Buddhism is necessarily dependent on being historically verifiable. It's more philosophically based, whereas Christianity and Judaism are oriented towards historical consciousness.

There are forms of Buddhism, even highly religious forms, that are conversant with modern skeptical approaches and consider most of their stories myths, nontheless owing to the philosophical basis, they see value in those myths (Shin Buddhism comes to mind).

 

[mindlight]

We cannot know for sure. In any case, historical links are irrelevant in terms of early Buddhism.

So for all you know the Buddha may never have existed or at very least the words attributed to him may have no connection with his life. Furthermore this does not even matter to you.

There are suggestions in the early Buddhist canon that false Dhamma would arise ~500 years after the passing of the Buddha. This seems to be the case to me, as Mahayana supposedly arose around that time period.

Are you (along with 120m others ) in the Theravada(Pali: "The School of the Elders") tradition then? My understanding is that Mahayana (Sanskrit: "The Great Vehicle") is the larger tradition with some 185 million followers. So if you have no historical basis by which to test source claims how can you say your version is truer than theirs?

Mahayana Buddhism is practiced by around 185 million people and is the dominant form of Buddhism in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Vietnam. Theravada Buddhism has about 125 million followers and is dominant in Cambodia, Thailand, Laos, Sri Lanka, and Burma .Another significant strand of Buddhism related to the Mahayana is Tibetan Buddhism, which is practiced by 20 million people largely in Tibet, Bhutan, Mongolia, and surrounding areas in India, China, and Russia. Buddhism is a growing spiritual influence in the West, and many new religious movements are affiliated with Buddhism, especially in Japan and Korea.

https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/essays/demographics-of-buddhism

The disciples who reached the consummate goal - the Arahants - supposedly perfected themselves to the point where they achieved the iddhi of the "divine eye/ear", which allows them to observe the past for themselves as if they were there, just as we can observe things around us in the present with our mundane eyes & ears. With the divine eye/ear, they are said to be able to recall the Buddha's past words as if they were there witnessing them in person. Supposedly, some of these Arahants recorded the Dhamma in written form as the Buddha-sasana (500 years) was coming to an end, in order to preserve as much of it as possible so it wouldn't be completely lost.

But we have no way of verifying if they achieved this perfection and if the insights that were written down were the ones they actually experienced.

Its historical credibility cannot be certain, nor directly & personally verified, until we ourselves achieve the divine eye & ear to witness these things for ourselves. However, when I read the early canon, I hear one voice through all of the thousands of suttas, so I have no problem believing that they truly originated from one mind.

Right so only insiders can hear this one voice and the claims made by it cannot be independently verified. But I assume that people inside the Mahayana tradition will disagree with many of your assumptions here.

"Historical credibility" is the wrong question to apply to Buddhism.

The Buddhist Way - as I understand it - is not based on any alleged traceable historical credibility, but on personal applicability in the here-and-now. Historical credibility is only a question applicable to religions which requires that their disciples maintain a faith in the actuality of non-personally-observable historical events. This is not the case for early Buddhism.

Historical credibility has a lot to do with the idea that I am not just imagining things and living inside my own personal bubble of false consciousness. That other people are real in themselves that history gives us an audit trail of reality to test our claims against is what is missing here. You have lost the other. So even the Buddha is not really experienced except as a component of our own consciousness, serving the purpose of our imaginings. In such a way of life real love of another must be unattainable.

All of the ancient Buddhist stories - e.g. about the Buddha's life - could very well be false and possess zero historical credibility, but it still wouldn't really affect much, since the practicable teachings ascribed to "Buddhism" 1. answers questions to my satisfaction like no other religion/philosophy, and 2. those teachings are personally verifiable, to be "seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be experienced by the observant for themselves" (the teachings - the Dhamma - is frequently described in these terms in the Buddhist canon).

To borrow CARM's words, "Our confidence in the applicability and verifiability of the Buddha-Dhamma rests on a foundation that is simply without comparison."

So what is the difference between a Buddhist and a solipsist? Or is there none. How can you test one traditions claims against anothers? Is this purely inside your own head and experience in which case what relevance does Buddhism have to anyone else?

 

[mindlight]

IMO, what "God" represents is the polar opposite to what the Buddha represents.

So Buddha is Satan? Incapable of love, joy, peace, patience , kindness, self control, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness. Or some how believing that this fruit can be self generated.

 

[mindlight]

I don't think Buddhism is necessarily dependent on being historically verifiable. It's more philosophically based, whereas Christianity and Judaism are oriented towards historical consciousness.

There are forms of Buddhism, even highly religious forms, that are conversant with modern skeptical approaches and consider most of their stories myths, nontheless owing to the philosophical basis, they see value in those myths (Shin Buddhism comes to mind).

Right it never happened, might all be one big fabrication but that does not matter so long as it feels right - is the sentiment I am reading right now.

 

[ubicaritas]

Right it never happened, might all be one big fabrication but that does not matter so long as it feels right - is the sentiment I am reading right now.

You wouldn't get very far dismissing their epistemology as mere feelings, that's for sure.

 

[Zoii]

So Buddha is Satan? Incapable of love, joy, peace, patience , kindness, self control, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness. Or some how believing that this fruit can be self generated.

Gee that was a bit disrespectful dont you think?

 

[ubicaritas]

So Buddha is Satan? Incapable of love, joy, peace, patience , kindness, self control, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness. Or some how believing that this fruit can be self generated.

Antitheism is very common among a certain kind of Buddhist. Especially in the south Asian tradition that even associates it with nationalism, antipathy towards missionaries, etc.

 

[mindlight]

You wouldn't get very far dismissing their epistemology as mere feelings, that's for sure.

But they are not giving any more solid grounds for affirming what they believe to be true as true.

 

[mindlight]

Gee that was a bit disrespectful dont you think?

It was a question and a valid one since he said the Buddha was the antithesis of God.

 

[mindlight]

Antitheism is very common among a certain kind of Buddhist. Especially in the south Asian tradition that even associates it with nationalism, antipathy towards missionaries, etc.

Which from a Christian point of view ranks it alongside extremist Islam, atheistic liberalism and persecuting Communism as an opponent of Christ

 

[Zoii]

It was a question and a valid one since he said the Buddha was the antithesis of God.

Oh cmon dont be silly. You know well Buddha is not satan and the other nonsense you said.

 

[ananda]

So for all you know the Buddha may never have existed or at very least the words attributed to him may have no connection with his life. Furthermore this does not even matter to you.

Correct. The "Buddha" could have been an outer-space alien, as far as I'm concerned. What matters far more is the truth regarding the enlightened Map, rather than beliefs concerning the Mapmaker; or, the effectiveness of medicine over beliefs concerning the Doctor.

Faith is only a starting point; it is not the end-goal.

Are you (along with 120m others ) in the Theravada(Pali: "The School of the Elders") tradition then? My understanding is that Mahayana (Sanskrit: "The Great Vehicle") is the larger tradition with some 185 million followers. So if you have no historical basis by which to test source claims how can you say your version is truer than theirs?

I practice the Forest Tradition of Theravada Buddhism. I claim that it is more true for myself, in the sense that practice of its Path has proven to be the most effective for me, whereas the Mahayana, and other, paths have not.

But we have no way of verifying if they achieved this perfection and if the insights that were written down were the ones they actually experienced ... Right so only insiders can hear this one voice and the claims made by it cannot be independently verified.

That's not quite true. The early Buddhist Path is a graded, progressive Path, open to anyone who desires to follow and verify it. As one proceeds along the Path, one is expected to see more of the destination over time (even if the destination has not been reached yet), just as a man who desires to reach a mountain will eventually begin to see the peaks and slopes of the mountain as he walks towards it over time. By progressing on the Path, I have personally verified for myself that the early Buddhist writings' insights are accurate, as far as I've gone. Thus, I hold a reasonable expectation that the achievement of the final goal of the Path is as claimed.

But I assume that people inside the Mahayana tradition will disagree with many of your assumptions here.

Probably.

Historical credibility has a lot to do with the idea that I am not just imagining things and living inside my own personal bubble of false consciousness. That other people are real in themselves that history gives us an audit trail of reality to test our claims against is what is missing here. You have lost the other. So even the Buddha is not really experienced except as a component of our own consciousness, serving the purpose of our imaginings. In such a way of life real love of another must be unattainable.

How would historical credibility serve to add to my personal, direct knowledge that life is filled with discontentments and sufferings, or to my personal testing of the suggested solution to that problem? I know those things for myself - I need no external, historical mythology to bolster my own internal, direct experience.

So what is the difference between a Buddhist and a solipsist? Or is there none.

The Buddhist concerns himself with (what we perceive as) the ultimate question in life, regarding discontentment & suffering. The solipsists concerns himself with the idea that only mind is known to be true.

How can you test one traditions claims against anothers? Is this purely inside your own head and experience in which case what relevance does Buddhism have to anyone else?

I test one tradition's claims against another through personal, direct experience. It is a Buddhist axiom that everyone must directly experience the truth for themselves; this is the highest and most profound Way which truly and fundamentally changes individual life paths for the better.

Perhaps your real question is this: "How can a religious tradition be proven to others?" - would that be true?

 

[Lost4words]

I have a friend who is a Buddhist who also loves and prays to God, Our Christian God.

Buddhism is a way of life. I wouldnt call it a religion.

 

[ananda]

So Buddha is Satan? Incapable of love, joy, peace, patience , kindness, self control, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness. Or some how believing that this fruit can be self generated.

No; Buddha, arahatta, and pari-nibbana represents the complete cessation of discontentment and suffering, and is the ultimate skillfulness.

All actions are done to change conditions in order to alleviate an experienced discontentment or suffering. For example: I scratch my skin - an action - in order to alleviate the discontentment I experience of an itch. I stop scratching - another action - because continuing to scratch would add to my experience of discontentment. Literally all actions can be understood in terms of the spectrum of suffering<->discontentment<->contentment<->pleasure.

"God" - using the common understanding of that word - is supposedly the greatest active, personal being. Therefore, if "God" acts, it can be concluded that it is the greatest being who experiences the greatest discontentments and sufferings in itself, and would represent the ultimate unskillfullness.

 

[mindlight]

Oh cmon dont be silly. You know well Buddha is not satan and the other nonsense you said.

The power reality is such that the Buddha either works for God or Satan. But Buddha has a different representation in the writings that refer to Him than the biblical view of Satan.

Love, joy, peace etc are not nonsense they are the fruit of the Spirit of God. To be truly the antithesis of God these qualities would all have to be missing.