mountainman

The same argument is often used to defend the HJ.

A alternative theoretical historical reconstruction can be made for both Jesus and Buddha on account of the fact that it may be argued that both of these figures were glorified and supported by extremely powerful and influential warlords three hundred years efter their supposed births - Constantine for Jesus, Ashoka for Buddha.

Historical reconstruction for Jesus it is easy, because the Jesus religion is inextricably bound with the text of the new testament, unlike the Buddha religion which does not necessarily rely on either canon or dogma. OTOH the books of the new testament were embraced by a Roman Emperor who attempted to publically "canonize" them. More importantly, these books were preserved by means of imperial sponsorship of the emperors of the Roman Empire following Constantine - and the state Jesus church had the army at its disposal. Did the "Buddha church" have Ashoka's military at its disposal? Were the books of Buddha preserved by means of imperial sponsorship of the emperors of the Indian Empire following Ashoka?

The Historical reality of the Heretics

Then there is the matter of the heretics, and how they were handled by the orthodox church. The Jesus church seemed to spawn massive amounts of heretics who were invariably hunted down by the orthodox jesus church people and killed. I am not sure I have heard of too many important and contraversial Buddha heretics.

The books of the Jesus church tells us that there is an anti-Jesus.
The books of the Buddha church do not mention an anti-Buddha.

Jesus was viewed in antiquity as "docetic".
Was Buddha ever viewed as "docetic"?

Jesus apparently sought to be believed (See Jesus' letter to King Agbar).
The Jesus church demanded and insisted in orthodox belief in the historicity of Jesus.
Buddha apparently sought to question all beliefs - including his own purported teachings.
The Buddha church did not demand belief in the historicity of Buddha.

Each case needs to be examined on its own merits.
It is not impossible that Jesus and Buddha were fabricated.
What does the evidence say?




I have just identified two influential warlords. Could Ashoka have invented Buddha? Could Constantine have invented Jesus? Did they have the means, the motive, the opportunity? Perhaps they fabricated these figures for power and influence over their respective empires? Forgery and telling bald faced lies was not unknown in antiquity.

IMO, only by arduous ancient historical research.

stephan huller

... Like those called Encratites in the present day, they know not marriage nor begetting of children. Some, too, of the Indians obey the precepts of Buddha; whom, on account of his extraordinary sanctity, they have raised to divine honours. [Clement Strom. 1.18]

Von Bek

As you know, the Buddha is not a proper name, but a title meaning, "the Awakened One." The title applies to whomever formulated the core teachings of Buddhism, regardless of whether that person's name really was Gotama. If Ashoka invented Buddhism, (which I don't believe*) then it would mean Ashoka is the Buddha.

*There are Buddhist sites that have been dated by archaeologists to being before Ashoka's time.

Kapyong

Gday,

I don't agree with your opinion at all.
Do you have any actual evidence to support it ?


We DON'T have a "history".
We have many different histories and legends and claims and books. But no real history.


Who is Buddha exactly?

If you cannot identify and place this person in time, you are just making noise without saying anything. How can I determine who these mystery man actually is ?

Claims and books from centuries later is not history.


Kapyong

Kapyong

So?
Just another god-man claim from CENTURIES later.


K.

Von Bek

As I said, it is my opinion. Believing that a set of teachings could originate from a single person is not an unreasonable position to take. Your position that an anonymous group composed them collectively is not unreasonable either. I am going to go with the majority scholarly opinion that he did exist, all things being equal.

The Buddha is a title, not a proper name. It refers to the man who began teaching the core doctrines associated with Buddhism, which we know exists. If something comes into existence we know it had a beginning. Buddhists and modern historians who study the subject say that about 2500 years ago in northeast India a man began teaching and drawing students together. This is not a fantastic conclusion to come to. We aren't talking about whether miracles were performed or even whether this individual was really enlightened. If you reject this conclusion and posit that there were multiple anonymous people involved, you haven't exactly made a stronger explanation for the origin of Buddhism.

Von Bek

The Buddha didn't claim to be a god, and Buddhists don''t call him one either.

dogsgod

There had to be an original person we call Buddha. The legends may not be real, but we have his thoughts on reality that were ahead of his time. You can not make this stuff up.

http://www.humanists.net/pdhutcheon/...les/buddha.htm

Von Bek

:thumbs:

premjan

Aristotle was not all that much later - couple of centuries.