Is there literally any historical evidence at all of Siddhartha Gautama existing though?

Is there literally any historical evidence at all of Siddhartha Gautama existing though? Not a single source is contemporary

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    After the Buddha passed away and was cremated in the Malla country of the Jains, his remains were initially separated into eight parts and stupas were built over them,including two in the country of the Mallas. The remains of these stupas still exist. Later, Ashoka had these dug up and split into many more parts.

    In the 19th and 20th centuries, British and Indian archaeologists, using indications in the texts, dug up some of these ancient stupas, which had long been forgotten and covered over. They found caskets from the very early periods containing remains and notations that these were relics of the Buddha.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I am aware.

      There are also holy relics of Jesus, like his foreskin and pieces of the true cross. That doesn't mean they actually belonged to him.

      https://i.imgur.com/Q84nXzj.jpg

      This doesn't work with the Buddha as we actually do have a large collection of primary sources composed by him and the people who knew him. Pic related, it's called the Pali Canon. Stylistically, the texts in it fall into two camps: those composed by "the Buddha" (the Sutra Pitaka and the Vinaya Pitaka), and those composed by "the Buddha's disciples" based on "the Buddha's" mannerisms and views (the Abhidhamma Pitaka).

      lmao
      talk about double standards

      imagine saying the Pali canon was written by Buddhas disciples, while claiming at the same time there's no possible way the NT could have had any real connection to Jesus' disciples

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >imagine saying the Pali canon was written by Buddhas disciples, while claiming at the same time there's no possible way the NT could have had any real connection to Jesus' disciples
        I agree, that would be absurd, which is why no one says that except Christians.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          But you literally just claimed that Siddhartha himself wrote the Pali canon. There's no evidence for that, which is why no one says that except Buddhists.

          You're the one being absurd now.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No I didn't, see

            https://i.imgur.com/Q84nXzj.jpg

            This doesn't work with the Buddha as we actually do have a large collection of primary sources composed by him and the people who knew him. Pic related, it's called the Pali Canon. Stylistically, the texts in it fall into two camps: those composed by "the Buddha" (the Sutra Pitaka and the Vinaya Pitaka), and those composed by "the Buddha's disciples" based on "the Buddha's" mannerisms and views (the Abhidhamma Pitaka).

            .

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >the texts in it fall into two camps: those composed by "the Buddha" (the Sutra Pitaka and the Vinaya Pitaka), and those composed by "the Buddha's disciples

            >those composed by "the Buddha"
            you can GTFO my thread now

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Correct, that's what I said. I'm glad that you've read my post more thoroughly now. I will accept your concession of defeat. If you'd like I could offer some literature on the topic that you might find helpful, given that you're new to this sort of stuff.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No one says that the gospels couldn't have been written by the apostles except Christians. Skeptics of israeli religion are totally open to the possibility of it, they just believe that there's not enough evidence to support the conclusion.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Correct, that's what I said. I'm glad that you've read my post more thoroughly now. I will accept your concession of defeat. If you'd like I could offer some literature on the topic that you might find helpful, given that you're new to this sort of stuff.

            these are bots

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Imagine getting btfod by a bot holy shit lmfao

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This doesn't work with the Buddha as we actually do have a large collection of primary sources composed by him and the people who knew him. Pic related, it's called the Pali Canon. Stylistically, the texts in it fall into two camps: those composed by "the Buddha" (the Sutra Pitaka and the Vinaya Pitaka), and those composed by "the Buddha's disciples" based on "the Buddha's" mannerisms and views (the Abhidhamma Pitaka).

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >we actually do have a large collection of primary sources composed by him and the people who knew him
      No we don't lol stop lying.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    no. Written language came to India 300 years after he was supposedly born

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      He didn't ask for the earliest written description, he asked for contemporary sources. Oral tradition is a text (yes I agree this terminology is shit, blame academia), and there are contemporary sources for the Buddha found in oral tradition that were written down 200 years after he died.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Oral tradition
        stopped reading right there

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          This. Anyone who thinks that the Septuagint is an accurate representation of the beliefs of Judaism circa 300sBC is a complete moron, there's no way that oral tradition can convey anything accurately.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If something is passed down in text, the guy writing it can make mistakes and alterations with impunity, not to mention cook up totally new stuff like the apocryphal gospels and mahayana sutras. But in the oral tradition, you're at the scrutiny of all your seniors. The buddhists used to chant by groups (each group chanted one nikaya), which meant that any novice mistake could be caught by the other monks and corrected. Not to mention it shuts the door on anyone who wants to revise existing material or add totally new stuff. After many centuries of having separate oral traditions in Sri Lanka, Burma, and Thailand that were eventually committed to text, comparing the recensions reveals very minor deviations like spelling of proper names. Oral tradition is nothing to sneeze at.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes.

            Brainlets love comparing oral tradition to the "telephone game". As if your religious tradition is nothing more than a parlor game.

            Protip, if you spend *months* with your master memorizing your sacred lines until they are flawless and automatic then yeah your "telephone game" is going to result in an output that is identical to the input.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You are ignoring that those were just stories and rumors before becoming le hecking sacred tradtionarinos for worthless autists and NEETs to obsess over

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >those were just stories and rumors
            >source: i made it the frick up

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            But there aren’t going to be scriptures in the earliest years, much less regimens of memorization. You can cf. the Qur’an - it didn’t reach its final recension until over 60 years later, and manifestly has historical conflicts with almost all contemporary sources, although it has a deep tradition of precise oral transmission today.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    OP here

    for the record, I believe both Siddhartha Gautama and Jesus of Nazareth really existed

    you'd have to be a spiteful moron to deny that, considering the abundance of evidence for both of them

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      But you literally just said that it's "absurd" to believe in either of those two figures and that there's "no evidence" for it, and that only Christians and Buddhists would ever say that these two figures existed.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        actually, you were the one to call it absurd
        see

        >imagine saying the Pali canon was written by Buddhas disciples, while claiming at the same time there's no possible way the NT could have had any real connection to Jesus' disciples
        I agree, that would be absurd, which is why no one says that except Christians.

        maybe your autism prevents you from recognizing the sarcasm in OP, which is why I posted that clarification

        I am demonstrating the absurdity and hypocrisy of Jesus mythicists by repeating verbatim what they say about Jesus, but for another important religious figure instead.

        Nobody denies Siddhartha really existed, even if there is even less historical evidence for his existence than there is for Jesus.

        No, the reason people deny Jesus existed is out of pure seething hatred for the religion he founded. That is the only reason.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Do you believe that the Gospel of Thomas was written by the Apostle Thomas?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No of course not it is a gnostic forgery

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            cool non sequitur

            Do you believe Abhidhamma Pitaka was transmitted by Śāriputra?

            So then I was right. You deny the possibility that the gospels could have any real connection Jesus' disciples. You, a Christian, believe this. For comparison there are no "heretical" texts that supposedly come from the Buddha and show up at the same time as the Pali Canon.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, don't put words in my mouth.

            You're attempting this weak ass damage control ITT because it exposes Jesus mythicism as ridiculous and spiteful.

            While the authorship of the Gospel of Thomas and Abhidhamma Pitaka can be disputed, that has no bearing whatsoever on the question of Jesus and Siddhartha's historicity.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            cool non sequitur

            Do you believe Abhidhamma Pitaka was transmitted by Śāriputra?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Nobody denies Siddhartha really existed
          Then why are you?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Hmm? Oh right, you're an autist and cannot fathom rhetorical flourish.

            see

            OP here

            for the record, I believe both Siddhartha Gautama and Jesus of Nazareth really existed

            you'd have to be a spiteful moron to deny that, considering the abundance of evidence for both of them

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What evidence?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Pali Canon and the Edicts of Ashoka.

        Ashoka literally found out where Siddhartha was born and dedicated an inscribed pillar for him there.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Pali Canon
          Not evidence for anything

          >Ashoka literally found out the place where *is claimed* thar Siddhartha was born
          Again, no evidence

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Not an argument.

            But there aren’t going to be scriptures in the earliest years, much less regimens of memorization. You can cf. the Qur’an - it didn’t reach its final recension until over 60 years later, and manifestly has historical conflicts with almost all contemporary sources, although it has a deep tradition of precise oral transmission today.

            >But there aren’t going to be scriptures in the earliest years, much less regimens of memorization

            Doesn't the canon say something about that?
            Something about the Sangha, I believe.

            Buddhists didn't invent the chain of transmission, that has existed for thousands of years before Siddhartha in all sorts of different forms. And it's even testified in the Pali canon that Siddhartha received lengthy instruction from different teachers, like Alara Kalama who said he had other students.

            The Buddhist traditions of memorization didn't form in a vacuum, they drew on other older schools and sages that were all around them.

            Sure there might not have been scriptures per say, but there were still authoritative teachings, community guidelines, common practice, etc. These would have been handed down to new students in the ordinary way, there really wasn't that much that separated the ways of Brahmins and the like from early Buddhists.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Neither Buddha or israelitesus existed

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Does it really matter?
    Unlike other religious founders who belief structure is hinged on them being miraculous people who you must follow and worship, the Buddha does not.
    The Buddha presents arguments, and those arguments stand regardless of whether he existed or not.
    Is desire the cause of suffering? if so, the cessation of desire will end suffering.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >The Sangha also fulfils the function of preserving the Buddha's original teachings and of providing spiritual support for the Buddhist lay-community. The Sangha has historically assumed responsibility for maintaining the integrity of the doctrine as well as the translation and propagation of the teachings of the Buddha.

    Yeah, seems like I was right. When Gautama established his aryasangha israeliteel, it was in part to further the dharma teaching through efforts of the Bhāṇaka in particular.

    It seems like a certain mode of transmission was a core part of what Gautama really taught his disciples to propagate. There's no reason to assume it's a later accretion.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >According to the scriptures, a council was held shortly after the Buddha's passing to collect and preserve his teachings. The Theravada tradition states that the Canon was recited orally from the 5th century to the first century BC, when it was written down.[23] The memorization was reinforced by regular communal recitations.

    >Pre-sectarian Buddhism was originally one of the śramaṇic movements.[27][28] The time of the Buddha was a time of urbanisation in India, and saw the growth of the śramaṇas, wandering philosophers that had rejected the authority of Vedas and Brahmanic priesthood,[29] intent on escaping saṃsāra[27][30] through various means, which involved the study of ascetic practices, and ethical behavior.[29]

    Seems to check out to me, not seeing the problem here. Everyone seems to agree Gautama really existed and the traditional account of how the Sangha began and transmitted his teachings as preserved in the Pali canon makes sense as a realistic method for the time, no glaring anachronisms, references concepts that were shared with other contemporary religions, etc.

    Why would anyone in their right mind deny that Gautama ever existed?

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    no, there is none. but it does not matter so much as the existence of Jesus means for christianity. if we remove the magic fluff from Buddha's story, it still stands; the magic is incidental. remove the magic from Jesus and the charade collapses.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Lol Buddhism is entirely dependent upon magic to be legitimate. Reincarnation, Nirvana, all that stuff is supernatural and everything the Buddha said were claims about having gained "understanding" of said supernatural forces.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        there's nothing magical in the understanding of suffering

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        read again. I said:
        >if we remove the magic fluff from Buddha's STORY
        disclaimer: I took a page from the jehovist playbook and use the term 'buddhism' to denote Theravada only, without warning. tribal religions assuming buddhist trappings aren't buddhism.
        theravada works without even reincarnation. the foundational how-to text, the Satipatthana Sutta, does not rely on reincarnation and promises a cery different kind of result from the practice.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      buddhism gains it's legitimacy from verification of the buddha's teachings, you can do that literally RIGHT this second

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Is there literally any historical evidence at all of Siddhartha Gautama existing though? Not a single source is contempor-ACK

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *