Kapyong

Gday,

But, yet again, you fail to cite any specific historical evidence for Lao Tsu. Do you actually have any to cite?

Please - no religious CLAIMS from centuries later.
Please - no copies of BOOKS from centuries later.
Please - no vague claims like "much more than two millenia".

Is there ANY contemporary, or near-contemporary evidence for Lao Tsu himself ?
It appears not.


Yes, you did that (twice now.)
And I asked what your point was.
And you ignored my question, and repeated the question.
Why?

This all started because I claimed that
"Mohamed almost certainly existed",
a completely NON controversial view.

Are you really arguing that Mohamed did NOT exist? Your unclear comments make it seem so.

If you have a point here, will you please let us know ?


So anyway, avi has a thing for Lao Tsu (and apparently against Mohamed), MM has a thing for Buddha but against Jesus, and many have a thing for Jesus, but against Buddha, Krishna etc.

It's quite funny seeing people argue FOR one their favourite figure while insisting the OTHERS are myths. What a laugh.


Kapyong

avi

His name is Lao Zi

Read post 30 for a reference, in Chinese.

If you don't read Chinese, then, don't argue.

Yes, I have a point to make:
Kapyong writes
Yet, when I solicit a link to one of his historical references, verifying that Mohammed "almost certainly existed", Kapyong does not furnish it. In my book, Mohammed the thief is most certainly NOT a "non-controversial" figure of history.

That's my point. Furnish the reference, else, acknowledge that you are simply expressing your own opinion, as I have done, in my summary of the spread of Islam at the hands of a camel drover who robbed caravans.

avi

mountainman

G'Day K,

So what would you call this "thing"?

It appears that you would like to see this "thing" as some form of "religious inclination", so that you can play the "Religious Manifesto Alignment Card". If I am wrong about this you are free to correct me.

However the way I see it is that avi has already pointed out that in his estimation "religious manifestos" are not to be considered in the same category as "philosophical treatises", and that he considers Lao Tzu (sorry avi I dont know the actual derivation of this name, neither any historical data either past or contemporary) to have some worth, in the space of "philosophical treatises" and not in the realm of "religious manifestos", and I agree with avi. I quite enjoy, and still do enjoy, quietly meditating upon some of the philosophy still extant in the lines of this ancient source. For example, I have a translation here

The OP however, is neither in the realm of religion or philosopher, but in the field of the great levelling discipline called "ancient history".

Avi is still bringing evidence to the table. Do you think he should continue to do this? Do you think that matter is therefore open or closed? The matter of course is always open - open to receive further new evidence, etc.


The last thing I wrote was this:

In the field of ancient history, evidence is supposed to underly belief, and not the other way around. Hence both the historical Buddha and the historical Jesus appear to be floundering in a sea of uncertainty in that field - of ancient history.

This refers to ancient history. In that field I remain impartial to religion, impartial to philosophy and impartial to metaphysics. Buddhism has been described as all these three things, but Christianity is described more or less just as "religious manifesto", without any philosophy or metaphysics.



Is this "thing" a "religious thing" or a "philosophical thing" or a "metaphysical thing" or an "ancient historical thing"? I think this thing is sometimes a mixture of many things, and that it is difficult to generalise without putting you're foot in it.

I have already agreed with you that it's quite funny seeing people argue FOR one their favourite figure while insisting the OTHERS are myths, when it is clear that the argument stems from the religious convictions of those people, and not their objective assessment of the ancient historical evidence.

However it seems pretty obvious to me anyway, that some people here are not arguing because of religious convictions of any form, rather these convictions are better described as either philosophical and/or metaphysical, the discussion of which is beyond the scope of BC&H.

In any case, the OP is about the "evidence for Buddha". So that you can be very clear on my position, I will repeat what I have already posted. I want you to be very clear on what my position actually is in the field of ancient history:

In the field of ancient history, evidence is supposed to underly belief, and not the other way around. Hence both the historical Buddha and the historical Jesus appear to be floundering in a sea of uncertainty in that field - of ancient history.

In the field of ancient history I do not have a "thing" for Buddha, or for Jesus, or for Gandalf the Grey, or even Kookaburra Jack.

Enjoy your laugh!

Best wishes,



Pete

mountainman

Hi avi,

Kapyong's original mention of Mohammad admitted he was just expressing his own opinion:

At the end of this day this thread is all about the term "historicity". And at the end of the day this forum is about the "historicity" of Jesus, in other words, the ancient historical evidence that supports the hypothesis in the field of ancient history, that there was an historical jesus.

Examination of the same question for Buddha (or Mohammad or LaoTzu or Gandalf the White etc) is an instructive process. Evidence is well received.


Best wishes,



Pete

Kapyong

Gday,

WTF?

You took several posts to play stupid word games WITHOUT making your point clear.

Now it turns out all that stupid word-play just to avoid admitting that you don't believe Mohamed existed? No wonder you were embarassed to say it out loud - here you are arguing FOR Lao Tsu, and AGAINST Mohamed !

What an idiotic argument.


What a sick joke this thread turned into - people preaching their favourite God-man, while simply rejecting the others.


Kapyong

Kapyong

Gday,

So - you have NO evidence you can actually cite here.

Like we all figured out several posts ago.

Lao Tsu is pretty clearly a myth.


Kapyong

Von Bek

Not clear at all. Murky is a better word.

I'll go with Lao Zi existing, simply because it is the simplest explanation to my mind to account for the origins of Taoism. Believe what you like; it's not like Lao Zi will send you to hell for disbelieving in his existence.

In the case of Buddhism I am interested in hearing a better explanation for its origin than being founded by a human. This person we can call the Buddha, even if his actual biography doesn't match the stories that have grown up around him. We are looking for the origin of the teachings of dependent origination, the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path, and the establishment of the Buddhist monastic structure.

Kapyong

Gday,

Pardon ?
I never argued Buddhism was not founded by a human.
Why on earth did you make that bizarre comment ?

I am arguing that Buddha did not exist. But that does NOT mean a human didn't start Buddhism.

Of course some human or humans started it - but that is NOT mean that a historical Buddha existed and started it, any more than stories about Hercules or Apollo or Dionysus must have come from a historical Hercules or Apollo or Dionysus.


Yes indeed - we are looking for that. But there is no hard evidence that Buddha was the origin. There is no hard evidence that Buddha existed.

You seem to convinced that the ONLY POSSIBLE origin of Buddhism was a real historical Buddha - but that is simply not true.


Kapyong

gurugeorge

Umm, yeah, the Buddha is fairly dubitable - nearly as dubitable as Jesus Christ.

And?

Von Bek

The Buddha existing is not the only explanation, it is the simplest one, IMO. If you deny the existence of him, you have to reconstruct the history of Buddhism. Who are the people responsible for it? If you cannot identify and place these people in time, you are just making noise without saying anything. How can I determine who these mystery men actually are?