I've seen threads upon threads with 350+ replies each of endless discussion about the historicity of Jesus. But I've yet to see a single one that devotes that much amount of debate to some other religious figure, except maybe for Muhammad every now and then.So for once I'd like to start a thread discussing the historicity of Siddhartha Gautama, aka Shakyamuni, aka the Buddha. So let's go /his/.What's the actual historical and archaeological evidence that we have for the historicity of Siddhartha, if any, and how reliable is it?
>>9164335There's not such threads because is a well known fact that he didn't existed.
>>9164500How so? Is there some kind of academic consensus that Siddhartha wasn't a real person or something?
>>9164584Yes, he was invented by Ashoka in order to give credibility to his new religion
>>9164601So you're saying that there is no previous mention of the Buddha in the historical record prior to Ashoka?
There are like three Buddhists in the entire board, while most of the rest is else part of an abrahamic religion or belonged to one beforeIt's just not a popular topic to discuss
The tree under which he got enlightened does still exist tho, and Buddhism does make a lotta sense.
>>9164335>>What's the actual historical and archaeological evidence that we have for the historicity of Siddhartha, if any, and how reliable is it?the only fact is that rationalists do not know how many sutras could exist without a buddha.That's a retarded way to see it, because a basis on a number of texts is meaningless.The content of the sutras is more interesting. People really hate them, which is pretty nice clue about the historicity.When people make up sutras, they don't go like the sutras in Pali and gandhari and so on.When NPCs make up sutras, they go the hindu way, long fan fictions and retarded way to expose their allegedly true teaching.This is the easiest way to see Mahayana is a scam. Those retards went all in with the Vedantist style, contrary to the buddhist sutras.The Mahayanist or Vedantist style is highly novelized, always going over the top, and very well written sutras. And generally it is how autistic people who think they are clever and pedagogical write. It turns out it is utter garbage, but in their demented mind, they see it as pure gold.Women really dig those novelsThe sutras in pali are not like that. NPCs hate them and they find them super dry. They hate that there are barely any instructions on mediation. They hate the contradictions, coming from lots of additions by the aforementioned autistic clerks who thought they could improve whatever materials they had at the time.They hate that the instructions are too scant.The most autistic NPCs would like a textbook on how to get enlightened, some sequence of axiom, definition, theorem, proof, example that you find in mathematics. This is what Mahayanists and the Hindus did.So basically the buddha existed because most of the sutras could not have been made up by NPCs. That's just not how intellectuals write.
>>9165049Then there is the content itself. Intellectuals do not give a shit about ''the source of suffering''. Like the buddhist philosophers show with their thousands of commentaries, NPCs and philosophers only care about the the inherent nature of ''things''. This what the buddhist philosophers and the Hindus talk about in their teachings, ie in the commentaries.They deeply hate that the sutras are not about ontology and all the eternal mental circle jerk of arm chair intellectuals that is the inherent nature of phenomena, so they started to turn the sutras into what they wanted, ie talking about the true nature of phenomena which gives the abidhammas, the commentaries, Mahayana.Then it gets worse with the Hindus, Jains and Buddhists starting to influence each other and the end result is big mess where all the three religions are the same.So the buddha existed because NPCs are seething about it and they deliberately changed the topic of discussion.
Reminder Buddha was a fair skinned fair haired blue eyed Scythian.His friend was described as blue eyed and tall.Buddha himself was described as looking different from the swarthier natives of South Asia.He was from the Saka/Shakya clan, they were a group of Scythians dwelling in North India.
>>9165049>>9165054Cool, but what other actual evidence do you have to support the historicity of Buddha?
>>9165062Didn’t Scythians come much later to india?
>>9165062Then Buddhism is an evil religion by white people and therefore we need to end it.
The closest thing is a shrine found at his birthplace in Lumbini a fear years ago. It carbon dated to around Buddha's birth
>>9165528everyone because it's literally made up
>>9167731This, I visited Lumbini last year and the building which was built over the supposed birthplace was surrounded by a bunch of stone ruins and on the inside of the building was more ruins and the stone he was supposedly born on
for archaeological evidence, there is none.
>>9164335Some historians tried to claim there had to be an historical Buddha that was hidden behind the myth, that's what Thomas Rhys Davids tried to do. The idea was to remove everything supernatural in the story of Buddha in order to get his biography. Nowadays, it's pretty much agreed this is a dumb method. Whether or not the Buddha existed is mostly irrelevant since we can't know anything about him at this point.
>>9169026So you're saying that when you take away all the supernatural parts of Buddha's biography there's absolutely nothing left?
>>9169033Nothing that would differentiate the Buddha from a random Hindu practicing ascetism. None of the text we have about the Buddha are historical, it's all hagiography. If you really want to create a biography, you're just favoring one literary genre (biography) against another (hagiography) which is kinda pointless in that context.
>>9169064What do you think of this anon's argument?>>9165049>>9165054If I understand it correctly, he seem to argue that Buddha must have been a real person since his teachings are so deep that they couldn't have been conceptualized by any rando.
>>9169090You'll find the same argument in every religion. The muslims will always argue that the Quran is so perfect it couldn't have been written by anyone but God.
Indian history begins with Asokha, which is 300 years after the buddha.
>>9169903What evidence do you have to support that Buddha indeed lived exactly 300 years before Asokha?
>>9169064Lmfao what, Buddhism was made exactly because Gautama saw how stuck up in the ass Hindus were with ascetism. He describes Buddhism as the third way, one which doesn't revolve around ascetism not hedonism.
>>9170025What do you call evidence?
>>9170961That's what I'm looking for. Anything that could confirm that Siddhartha was a real person.
so whats the proof the buddha existed
>>9164335My understanding is that like Jesus there is a basic agreement among academics that he was a real person, but like Jesus the details of his life are hard to parse out because myth is so mixed with the facts when it comes to these ancient religious leaders.
>>9164335I think majority of historians are in agreement that he was an actual person. There isn't really any direct evidence to prove it, but that doesn't mean he didn't exist. to my knowledge there are many other historical figures like that as well. There isn't really any direct evidence they existed during the time they were alive and the only records to prove they existed come after their death.
he was an albanian (scythian) nobleman. shakyauma = shakyau indian word for SCYTHIAN = scythian buddha. his dad was albanian warlord and noble as weell
>>9171945On what do the academics base their position that Buddha was a real person then? If his life is so mixed with mythology.
>>9172004Yeah, but my question in this thread is: what positive evidence for his existence is there? If I, for example, were to declare that Buddha wasn't a real person, is there any solid historical or archaeological evidence that would contradict me? Is there any piece of evidence that I'd have to contend with?
>>9172606The only evidence he ever existed comes much after his death in the form of his teachings and stories related to him. There is no definitive evidence, otherwise the debate over it wouldn't even be a thing.in terms of archaeological evidence, the best we have is the supposed place where buddha was born which dates to about the 6th century b.c. This matches up with the time period/place Ashoka said buddha was born in. Certain scenery of the location in terms of the trees matches up with the story of buddha's mother giving birth to him.You could argue that he doesn't exist but the likely answer is that he definitely was a real person. However much about his life was later exaggerated/changed.
>>9172943>You could argue that he doesn't exist but the likely answer is that he definitely was a real person.But why? Why is that the likely answer? Based on what?
>>9172976Based on the evidence we have. The evidence doesn't prove he existed without doubt but there was a man at one point who started the movement of buddhism. That man could have been the buddha we know today or a man who started the movement based on an another person he knew or heard about. The point is, there was definitely a person who the movement was created by/based on.You could argue he never existed due to lack of evidence proving it without the shadow of a doubt but that would require you to not believe in many other historical figures as well and I think it would be a weak argument, which is why almost all historians today believe that he was a real person. Even though it's possible for example that he wasn't actually the son of a prince, etc. The supposed story of his upbringing and other events could just be entirely fictional, or maybe they have some truth to them but were exaggerated. We can't really know.
**son of a king
The Buddha was a based datura eater who managed to get the secrets of the shadowpeople out of their hands, he's more powerful than any man before or after him
>>9172976based on what rationalists call proof in their field they cal history
>>9172606There isn't really any positive evidence, the earliest accounts / mentions of the Buddha that we have are from like 120 years after the latest dates given for his life. There's nothing remotely reliable.>>9173043This is ridiculous. There's a million different ways Buddhism could have come into existence. For instance, Buddhism could have coalesced as a philosophical and religious developed by a bunch of different thinkers around the same time from the background of ascetic Indian spirituality, with Siddartha as an invented figure to whom the doctrine of the movement was later attributed. There's nothing particularly unlikely about this. I mean, just look at the ways that Buddhism developed in historical times - it's not at all unusual for Buddhists to come up with really dramatically different innovations in ritual, spiritual practice, philosophy, etc, and just call them Buddhism. There's a huge amount of sutras in Buddhism that are attributed to Buddha that we can be pretty sure are not authentic and were written much later - so it's clearly the case that these kinds of developments can happen, and not be traceable to a single specific inventor figure, and later be attributed to a single specific inventor figure later even when we know that's historically impossible.That's just one possible explanation - it's not necessarily more plausible than the idea that Buddhism was started by one specific enlightened Buddha. All I'm saying is that we can't just presuppose Buddha must have existed.
>>9174165>>There isn't really any positive evidence, the earliest accounts / mentions of the Buddha that we have are from like 120 years after the latest dates given for his life. There's nothing remotely reliable.Just like in other field of history.
>>9174541what field of history is primarily based on secondary references and sources from over a century later? Many of which are clearly hagiographic religious documents?
>>9174165Unfortunately I don't think we will ever know the true answer since writing down stuff wasn't even a thing back during the time buddha was supposedly alive (at least in india). I only say he must have existed because that is what most scholars/historians believe in like I mentioned before, even if the buddha that existed is absolutely nothing like the one we read about today or was just a group of scholars like you mentioned.
Even if buddha was never an actual person, I think the title of "buddha" can still be handed over to the thinker or thinkers who created the figure as a mean to pass on their thoughts/beliefs.
>>9164500Even most atheists don't believe this m8
>>9164500Even most hindus don't believe this m8