For myself, it doesn't matter whether or not Buddha existed. The important part is the teachings, not the person... Would Calculus stop working if Isaac Newton wasn't a real person?
@Goldie: I would disagree. The reason why the originator of calculus doesn’t matter is that it works. The same is true of Buddhism. Test the dharma. If works use it - if it doesn’t, walk away.
What I find most profound about his teachings was the one he asked his followers not to believe his teachings at face value but rather try them on yourselves and see if they are true. Sort of like a mathematician would say
The most recent evidence proves he did just FYI. Prior to I believe a year or 3 years ago the only thing that could tie the Buddha to a historical time was King Ashoka who lived 300 years after him. He put up pillars where he taught, marked his place of birth. When his birthplace was excavated, they found this www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/in-focus-articles/archaeological-discoveries-in-nepal-confirm-early-date-of-buddhas-life/
I agree with Doug's general message that in the Buddhism case, whether or not the historical Buddha existed is not as relevant as the teachings that we have inherited. In my opinion, it seems that in the Christianity case it is more critical to the validity/truth of the religion that the historical Jesus existed, since the religion is fundamentally based on worshipping him (God). Without Jesus existing, the whole story seems to fall apart and if I were a follower of that religion I would consider it absolutely critical that he did exist (which is likely the case). To my knowledge, the Buddha never asked anyone to worship him and instead encouraged skepticism and questioning. Just something I considered while watching this, thanks Doug!
If Jesus did exist like you state, then he said "I AM the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE." - If this is true, then you have to consider why would you follow anyone else?
@@christrevelation4043 Buddha gave us a way out of all suffering - why would anyone follow anyone else? Krishna said that those who follow him will awaken to to eternal truth - why would anyone follow anyone else? Etc., etc.. The answer is simple - each of us is unique. We see things in a unique way. Therefore different people find comfort and help expressed in different ways. Ultimately it all merges but at the level of the individual we need to follow something which makes sense and works. There is no contradiction - only different ways of expressing that which cannot be expressed.
There's a famous quote: Even if the Buddha never existed, everything he said is still true. Not the same with the modern fundamentalist Christian religion.
Thank you, Doug! I didn't expect such a detailed and thoughtful answer to my question... which was posed to you in a state of some existential angst, I think. Of course, you are correct in that one's personal practice is about how, not who. The thing is that I want to go beyond my internal practice to the level of being in a Buddhist community. At that level, nearly everything is up for grabs, because of the myriad varieties of "Buddhism the Religion". I have to examine what I am willing or able to believe in, in order to determine which group I would like to align myself with. It has been a long, frustrating, possibly impossible task. At the moment, I still am virtually alone. But, starting next week I'll be leading a regular meditation group at my town's Senior Center. Perhaps that will provide some of the community I'm hoping for. Again, with thanks, Tricia
You're very welcome Tricia. That's great news that you'll be leading a local meditation group! Sometimes that's the best way forward: if you can't find what you want locally, make it yourself. It will probably take awhile, and involve many weeks of small groups. But if you keep it up I bet you'll find many willing takers and the group will grow. Don't forget though to publicize as much as you can, and perhaps try to contact people doing MBSR, yoga, or psychologists in the community who might be avenues to others interested in regular meditation. That's very exciting!
Great video and very interesting questions, Doug. From my perspective, it doesn’t matter that much whether the historical Buddha existed because of the tradition’s emphasis on Ehipasiko, and because I am a Westerner choosing Buddhism specifically for its suffering-reducing qualities. Therefore, my faith in Buddhism is based (in large part though not entirely) on my personal experience as I investigate the teachings in my life. Where the teachings originated from matter less than my experience with them. That said, I live in Thailand where the faith-oriented aspects of Buddhism (making merit, for example) play a much larger role than things like meditation, personal investigation, or application of the 8-fold path in everyday life. I believe that the veracity of Buddha’s story is probably very important to practitioners here because of the different approach to the religion. I would be interested to know what Mahāyāna practitioners in Asia think about the issue. I’m guessing it wouldn’t matter much to them whether the real Buddha existed, but I’m not sure. Any thoughts? Many thanks!
You're very welcome Charity, thanks for your thoughts! I think the Mahāyāna outlook is more to consider the Buddha a kind of deified or metaphysical presence than an actual human anyway so the question shifts somewhat. We get into issues of "Buddha nature" or emptiness manifesting in all things. This also shades off into questions of whether anything at all "really" exists since all things are empty. So the question shifts. But I imagine each practitioner's interpretation will vary considerably, and at the end of the day faith-based rituals such as prayer or making merit will tend to predominate there as well.
Thanks for your response , Doug. I find that fascinating. Though I’m definitely a Theravada practitioner, I love learning about Mahayana. I would love to see more Mahāyāna-related topics on the channel.
Thanks Charity. In general I find that Mahāyāna material is quite easy to find, but material on early Buddhism and Theravāda is not. That's why I concentrate on the latter two. (Also they are what interest me particularly). But that said I did do an earlier video on the Mahāyāna in case you haven't seen it yet: ua-cam.com/video/wi_hqpIu-vk/v-deo.html
Mahayana is much influenced by the Chinese where gods and deities are believed too although the fundamentals like 4 Noble Truths, Noble 8 Fold Path, Impermanence, Sufferings, Selflessness etc are the same but put in a different manner or title. In Chinese they claimed Mahayana covers more knowledge than Theravada. In practice, I see their biggest difference is their monks and nuns must be vegetarians but they cook themselves in the temple while Theravada are not vegetarians but food given by others. Some Mahayana Chinese worship the Amitabah Buddha who is believed to be a God, I am confused here 🤔. Having said that, I have been observing Thai Buddhism and worried for them, their followers are getting very superstitious and seems to attend Wats asking for blessings more than studying the Buddha's teachings although some basic Buddhism was taught in their education system, more confused 🤭🤔
Thanks for this video, Doug. I used to want to know so many things in general, including this particular topic. The more answers I received, more questions would arise. It seemed never ending. I came to realize that I wasn't using my time wisely. I stopped asking too many questions and decided to use my time on the Buddha's teachings instead, mostly the 4 Noble Truths and 8 Fold Paths. Knowledge is great, however, wisdom helped me gain more peace, happiness, and love for all beings. Until one follows the path, then one realizes the teachings are all one really needs. I stopped asking about the Buddha altogether.
Yes indeed Puma Houangvilay. It's better to focus on our practice right now than spend time worrying about what might or might not have taken place in the distant past. 🙂
This topic can be summerized with the Spider-Man argument. It does not matter that Spider-Man if fictive, his message that with great power comes great responsibility is still inspiring.
Doug, I have an aunt who recently and unexpectedly died, leaving my mom and her side of the family stricken with grief and sadness. I myself have not had to deal with such grief, as the only immediate family I have are my parents who are still alive. However, their deaths are always in the back of my mind, maybe now more so than before. Of course death, decay, and impermanence are touched upon in many of your videos, as they are very much relevant to Buddhism, but I was wondering if you could do a video concentrating on death/grief through a Buddhist perspective.
Thanks for the suggestion Chris. The question is how to do it properly without seeming too morbid, but I do think it's worth doing if I can get my mind around it. 🙏
Sorry, Maunster, the excavation of these structures doesn't prove at all that Siddharta Gautama was a historical person. It only proves that at the time when the structures were built , the people who lived there, practiced an early form of Buddhism. And they believed that a teacher called Siddharta had lived and developed the foundations of their faith. The excavation doesn't prove that there was a historical person called Siddharta - just like the excavation of an early church in Bethlehem would not be sufficient evidence that Jesus really existed and that he was born in a stable in Bethlehem. An independent source is needed. And the case for a historical Jesus is better to establish because he is actually mentioned once by the historian Flavius Josephus who was not an early Christian but a romanized Jew. Also, many contemporary people, like Pilate, King Herod, John the Baptist and Paul of Tarsus are well established historical persons. And the earliest written sources - the gospel of Marc and Paul's letters - have been written just a few decades after Jesus' death, while the first Buddhist texts were written a few centuries after a teacher called Siddharta had allegedly lived. Disclaimer: I am not a religious person who tries to elevate Christianity over Buddhism, and the historical Jesus had probably not much in common with the biblical Jesus anyway. Paul of Tarsus was the guy who almost singlehandedly developed a brand of Christianity which wasn't just meant for Jews and which had an international and timeless appeal. Personally I am agnostic. But I'm a history buff, who tries to look at the available evidence. And there simply isn't any hard evidence for the existence of a historical Siddharta Gautama. He may have lived, but he could also be a fictional character like Agamemnon, Achilles and Odysseus. And the discovery and subsequent excavation of a bronze age city which probably was Troy, doesn't prove that the Ilias is a historically reliable record and that the characters of the Ilias have really existed. But does it really matter if the Gautama Buddha is or is not a historical person? I think it's far more important if a belief system offers valuable spiritual insights which help us to live a more fulfilled and just life. Many branches of Buddhism have a lot of valuable and timeless wisdoms to offer - even after more than 2500 years! The same is true for many other religions and belief systems. And story telling is a much more powerful vehicle for spreading these wisdoms than teaching purely philosophical theories.
@@sabineb.5616 I am an ordained Theravada Monk. Pra’ Paphakaro is my temple name. “The one who brings forth the light.” He was a real person, we in the West unfortunately discount oral histories. This case in unique however, because Pali was not a written or colloquial language, and The Buddha chose Pali to keep the truth intacted. I had to memorize the Tipitaka by heart. The first section was 10 pages of prayers. The Pali Cannon is what I had to memorize. It’s also no coincidence that in Southeast Asia it is year 2653.... do the math
@@manderson7341 , thanks a lot for your very interesting answer. But as I said already, I have been looking at the question if Siddharta was a historical person or not from a purely scientific point of view. And from that point of view there is simply no irrefutable proof that Siddharta was a real person. And my main point was that the excavation of the temple doesn't change this. It only proves that the people who built the temple practiced Buddhism. And even the most painstaking oral tradition is not sufficient proof if an independent source is missing. I think that the Ilias and the Odyssee which have been allegedly composed by a blind poet called Homer, are a very good example. These great epic poems have been preserved orally over many centuries, because ancient Greeks had become illiterate after the so-called bronze age collapse which took place in the East Mediterranian areas. It's mindboggling to imagine how these wonderful epic compositions have been orally preserved over so many centuries. Legions of performers and singers must have memorized every single verse and must have taught their students to memorize the poems as well! Most historians believe now that the story of the fall of a splendid city called Troy has roots in very real events during this bronze age collapse. Most experts also believe nowadays that the location of Troy is in modern Turkey and exactly at the spot where Heinrich Schliemann started to dig in the second half of the 19th century. But the fact that Troy actually existed doesn't prove that Achilles, Agamamnon, the beautiful Helena and my personal favorite, the smart trickster Odysseus are historical persons. That said, there is no indication either that an enlightened teacher called Siddharta Gautama did not exist. But does it really matter? I really don't think that teachings which are full of fundamental wisdom become less valuable if the source of these teachings isn't just one historical person but rather many anonymous teachers who found it easier to preserve their teachings by telling wonderful stories about a prince called Siddharta who decided to leave his material position behind in order to seek for something much more valuable. Siddharta may or may not have been real. But the teachings are real. They definitely exist. I grew up in a Christian household, and I remember that I was very surprised when I eventually learned that Jesus had actually existed! I had always thought that the stories about Jesus had been a vehicle for making Christian teachings more accessible. And I was not altogether wrong. The historical Jesus has probably very little to do with the so-called Christ and the Christian faith which developed after Jesus' death. The same may well be true if Siddharta was indeed a historical person just like Jesus and Mohammed. There is no way to know for sure if Siddharta's original teachings have been accurately preserved over more than 2000 years. The likelihood is very slim IMO because each following generation will adapt and modify traditions to the needs and circumstances of their own times. But as I said already, that does not make the teachings less valuable.
What an excellent video and I could not agree more on your final thoughts . To be blunt the real question is “ does it work ?” . It cannot be any more clear.
One of your best videos. Key comparisons with Christianity was important to illustrate how Buddhism is so powerful that it doesn't even matter if historical Buddha existed or not
i used to have that skepticism when i was young since many stories about him seem impossible to be real stories. and it grew stronger after my education in the usa. now i have no doubt in my mind he really existed and his stories are real. my experience with certain revered thai monks were too overwhelmed for me to continue doubting that.
Yes, well one may also come to the belief that he was a historical person and yet not all the stories about him are accurate. This is usually the case with important historical figures after all.
Thank you for your videos. From what I have learned so far, “the” Buddha exists in all of us, and all we need to do is to awaken the Buddha in us. If we choose to live a kind and mindful life, and manage to maintain that throughout our life’s ups and downs, we are a Buddha. If the Buddha (Gautama) became enlightened and THEN started teaching, this would mean that he remained as enlightened as humanly possible, IF he was still grumpy at times, as described in some texts 😉
for me, knowing whether Buddha existed or not matters more in terms of spirituality (specially regarding rebirth) than in terms of wisdom. even if the Buddha doesn't exist and rebirth or karma aren't real, Buddhism still makes a lot of philosophical and practical sense to me. it has been helping me so far and, although I still struggle with life sometimes, I have been more at peace with some stuff than I used to before.
I'm viewing Buddha's presence as a bright lamp till the end of his life, when the flame went out without much traces. What he left behind might be descendants of many other lamps ( eg. deciples) he lit (taught) through his teaching career
Hi Doug, I have always felt that the Buddha was a teacher of practical philosophy and Ashoka was the founder of 'Buddhism' as a religion. A religion needs to lend some supernatural authority to the state in the form of ceremony and hierarchy. Is it possible to pick the original message out of the religion?
Well, it's an interesting hypothesis but I don't really know of any evidence for it. We have to be careful not to read modern ideas back into ancient thinkers and texts. The evidence is that the Buddha had a lot of beliefs in the supernatural, as would only be natural given the time period in which he lived. As for Asoka, there isn't any evidence that he changed Buddhist teaching, although he certainly seems to have acted to spread the dhamma widely. Indeed he may have been responsible for Buddhism's joining the rank of world religions -- in the sense that without him, the Buddha dhamma might simply have died out. Asoka was also commendably secular in many respects, and doesn't seem to have been overly taken with devotional aspects of current religious practices. I have an earlier video on Asoka in case you are interested: ua-cam.com/video/V4894Ug8Y3c/v-deo.html
@@DougsDharma Thank you Doug, I will watch with interest, I agree that the original teachings would have to reflect the supernatural beliefs of the time they were written, I don't suppose they would have been accepted otherwise. In my heart I always felt that the historical Buddha was re-interpreting established brahmic beliefs to establish his teachings in a relevant way, I think the way that responsibility for Karma and rebirth is moved from the supernatural to the personal in the Buddha's teachings exemplifies this for me. I think you absolutely right that without Ashoka buddhism would have died out, particularly his export of texts to sri-lanka, I do think the transformation to buddhism as a religion at that lead to the issue of the Buddhda being deified and worshipped which he almost certainly did not want?
Thanks John, it's hard to say. The evidence from the remaining texts is that the Buddha tended to welcome a reasoned faith in his person, and in himself as a personification of the dhamma. I would also shy away from any implication that the Buddha adopted belief in the supernatural as simple expedience. There were other teachers at the time who were materialist, and against whom the Buddha argued pretty strenuously. For more on that see: ua-cam.com/video/aoxagmtSHI0/v-deo.html
The historicity of the Buddha and the early arahants is important as a demonstration that some people reached awakening in their own lifetimes. If they existed then we know that what they called awakening was achievable. If not, then one might seriously question whether the path is practical or merely represents an unreachable ideal.
Hello Doug, I'm surprised you didn't touch on the documentary "The Bones of the Buddha" . Maybe you can expand on that ? Enjoy listening , you break it down w/ Metta Robert
Good catch Robert. I think the video was long enough as it is, there is indeed other evidence though my understanding is that the Piprahwa relics still remain controversial in scholarly circles. Personally I remain skeptical about supposed direct relics, since historically they have been faked so very often. That said, even the existence of supposed relics does lend weight to the idea that people near to the Buddha's lifetime believed him to have been a real person.
I see this is a rather old video but interesting. I like the end comment about if the question of Buddha existence, that it doesn't really mater for practicing the teachings of the "Buddha". I am no Buddhist but I explore meditation and it does me a lot of good.
A Life of Love...Kindness...Compassion...and Joy as starting pillars of your Path....seems more important to me. It was soooooooooooo long ago. The aforementioned qualities for your Path are Timeless....and more important...in the here and now.
it wouldn't matter much whether the historic Buddha existed as long as the teaching, the dhamma is relevant however one could find the ruins of building materials in Lumbini , Nepal just next to Ashokan pillar which marks the birth of Lord Buddha.
Maybe you’ve covered this before, as I’m fairly new to your channel, but why do you say the Buddha’s original personal name was Sidhatta Gotama instead of Siddhartha Gautama? I’ve always heard & read his name as Siddhartha, never really seen it written as Sidhatta before. Is there any significance in the meaning of the different name?
Great video. Though from my understanding, historians agree that the first Buddhist writing existed 500 years after the Buddha, while the gospels first appear only 40 years after the death of Jesus. I think that's important historical point into the possible validity of each account.
Well the first Buddhist writing would be Asoka's edicts, which were written perhaps a century after the Buddha's passing. So it's not really that different. The Buddhist canon was first written down perhaps in the 1st c. BCE, which would make it around three to four centuries after his death.
@@DougsDharma, for me, the key-argument/question would be: What hard facts---according to current scientific standards---do we have on this semi-legendary figure of Gautama Siddharta? The answer seems to be: We really don´t know much about life and work of this (proto-)Yoga practitioner and teacher. On the other hand, we witness a formative period in Indian culture (Hinduism, Jainism, and other "systems" began to form, etc.). So we may fairly well assume that, if there was indeed a person called the "awoken one" Muni of the Shakya-clan, his teachings were, for a big part, in accordance with the "spiritual mainstream" of his times (one reference, e.g.: Herbert von Guenther, "Buddha"). What we also may assume with some certainty is: Heated debates about the right transmission and the exegetics of certain key-concepts set in very soon after the Buddhist Sangha had established itself, like: a) "Is time real?" b) "Are past-times and future-times as real as the present time(s)?" c) "What >matter< is time, anyway?" d) "What do the >anâtman-doctrins< really say/mean?" "What is meant by Nirwâna?" (Some say "it´s utmost bliss", some say it´s "utmost annihilation", some say it´s "something totally different", and so forth). So, for a short personal conclusion: If there was a historical Gautama Siddharta, we do not know exactly, today, how his life and work informed the later Buddhist Movement, which obviously more and more unfolded complex own dynamics inside the "old" Eastern, and Far Eastern cultures (via the main branches of the Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana, which also mixed with certain elite-cultures and folk-cultures). And the same might apply, mutatis mutandis, to the Christian one, too. For example, it is not even totally clear, if the figure of "Jesus the Christ" is somehow an artificial one, insofar, from some angles, it seems to unite several diverse historical persons into one "main narrative" (and the picture is even still more complicated by the many apocryphons that we find outside the canonical gospels), which would allow for the explanation of some discrepancies inside the "main-character": in one episode pacifist, in another rather revengeful, sometimes more a healer, sometimes more an apocalyptic prophet, and so forth (as critical thinkers, like Bertrand Russell, already keenly observed), but that´s another story...
I am privileged to speak on this. Yes he existed, no doubt. I was a Theravada monk , you have to understand that The Pali Cannon was written in a language that was not the common tongue. I had to learn the Vinaya Pali Suttas to initiate as a monk. Trust me the bias that oral history (in the West) is impossible. TRUST ME ITS NOT. Thanks
Although I think like most other people that it's not important whether he existed or not as the importance is the teachings, I still feel that he must have existed and an enlightenment state as a Buddha must be real based on the followings: 1) With so much detailed teachings like the 6 sense doors, 52 or 54 phenomenons of the mind, 5 Hindrances, such details in the Abhidhamma and knowledge on Mindfulnes, who an ordinary people could have know so much if Buddha or such level of enlightenment don't exist ? His teachings are not mere mythologies or claims of beliefs but so "scientific" of its own and irrefutable, at least till now 🤔 2)If all his knowledge are given by someone else, who would have done it and stay anonymous without wanting credits ? The only possibility is a god 🤣 3)Since the Buddha's teachings are so much on non-selfishness and non-self, it's more unlikely that anyone will want to fake a story for such aim. 4) I never believe in enlightenment until I practised meditation in recent years and so much extraordinary knowledge which I could not have thought of came into my mind suddenly eg 500 witnesses to Jesus's resurrection "probably" copied from Buddha's 500 arahants and the future Buddha combined, Hindus not eating beef and Muslims not eating pork are evidence of rebirth ? And others 😇
I am sorry Doug but I think that this will be the last video of this series that I will watch; they are coming out thick and fast and moving away from what matters most - that is the question of how best to PRACTICE the Buddha-Dhamma. It seems to me that far better than relying on the dry, humourless and pedantic presentations of Richard Gombrich, it would be better to go to the commentaries on the Vinaya and read some of the stories that are the source for many of the most important rules for monks and nuns. Some of these are very funny. The Buddha was a recluse and later a monastic. He, like most people in ancient India, was well aware of the behavioural requirements expected of renunciates; If those were not met, then people would not offer food or medicines. But, with the founding of monasteries, the Buddha deemed it necessary to institute some basic rules for communal harmony and to protect the integrity of his monks and nuns. Some of those source stories are very funny and show, very clearly, that the Buddha was indeed a living human being! No need to ask Richard Gombrich! 😂
No worries Alan, my focus is more on dharma and history and less on practice simply because I feel practice is best instituted by oneself. Videos can't practice for you, and you can't practice by watching videos. So the videos are for dharma discussion, finer points, and so on. 🙏🙂
To my knowledge, Before Lord buddha's death ( we say parinirwanaya). He had some plans to control his tradition and followers. So, He said that after his death, the next leader of the buddhist community will be Dhamma itself. No monk or king was appointed as the new leader. Lord buddha once said. One who understands the Dhamma he will see Buddha in his lifetime ( not after the death)
That’s right dulanga, the Buddha asked us to be islands and refuges unto ourselves, and to take the dhamma as our island and refuge. I have mentioned this before on my videos. 🙏
None of us who have existed after the time of the Buddha truly know if the Buddha existed. Unless of course if individuals were at the same time/place as the Buddha. Therefore, all we have is hearsay, rumors, or potential speculation. Assuredly whether he did exist or did not exist there could be some kind of gray area also known as the teaching of the middle way. We could say this for the debate of Jesus and other figures.
I agree, doesn't matter if he existed what matters is the way and the wisdom. I believe he existed historical. Satoshi Nakamoto was probably not real, but that doesn't make bitcoin stop working. 😅
Not only buddha but one previous buddha whose name was konaakamanasa inscription is also found in nigali sagar in nepal.. and not only this we have a stupa in mohanjodaro of indus valley civilization which gives too much strength to history of buddhism in india
Yes, well it seems they lived very similar lives as forest renunciants of a sort, though they had very different philosophies. I talk a bit about Jainism in this video about the Buddha’s competitors: ua-cam.com/video/aoxagmtSHI0/v-deo.html
Jainism is way older than Buddhism. Sramara movement within Vedic people(Hindus) resulted into Jainism, Budhism and Ajivika philosophies or religions. I have seen my Jain friends taking about these resemblance with Buddhism and claim to be inspired from them. Siddhartha Gautam(Budha)' Guru Ramaputra also claimed to be a Jain. I do not have much knowledge but I see Buddhism is now changed a lot(branches) whereas Jains are still living those teachings and tradition. It's something I see in majority bcz I have many Jain and Buddhist friends.
maybe there is fantasy and reality... we need fantasy for faith that we can become a buddha (whatever that means) and reality is that we need discipline to follow the teachings that guide us to achieve our fantasy. Whether buddha existed or not is just wishful thinking but we need to believe it to becomes buddhas ourselves. If we don't want to become buddhas ourselves then we are not Buddhists.
Well we can want to become enlightened arahants for example, which is different from becoming a Buddha. Becoming a Buddha is something that wasn't contemplated in the early material. Or we can just want to follow dharma practices and become calmer, more peaceful, and more compassionate.
The western world used to believe Buddha didn't exist, or at least that his was also a mostly fictitious supernatural life. It took study of Pali, Sanskrit, Archeology, the Ashokan pillars, resistance to colonialism, and some of the earliest writings and sites. They've found Buddha's father's royal debate chambers so conclude his territory and family existed. Still, inspiring, when most leaned no, Practitioners kept the Way. If they decided again He didn't exist, I reckon I'd disagree, but even if you [not you Dougie, the world you,] made me say it, by now, practice refuge and precepts still exists. For me. Bows, Jikai
Professor Mark Siderits has shown that Buddha never denied the existence of a self. Both Siderits and Joaquin Perez-Remon have shown that Buddha merely denied that the skandhas, in any combination, would qualify as a self. This is non-self, not no-self. Perhaps the situation is simply not captured by these words, and the soteriological interests of Buddha and Buddhists in general are not typically helped by talking in terms of self, though even later Buddhist masters such as Candrakirti said whether one teaches self of non-self depends on upaya. This gets even more complicated when we consider the four absolutes, including the self, taught in the Chinese Mahaparinirvana Sutra.
Right, I discuss how the Buddha never denied the existence of a conventional self in this and several other videos: ua-cam.com/video/wUDnPy6ACG4/v-deo.html
@@DougsDharma he never denied the existence of self, full stop, conventional or otherwise. Pérez-Remón writes: "As we have pointed out the nature of the true self is never made the subject of discussion. We are only told what is not the self and consequently what the self is not. Beyond that the only thing we are told is that the self is transcendent and therefore ineffable, beyond our powers of comprehension. Hence, if anyone, at any time, concentrates his attention on [the question of] the existence or non-existence of the self after liberation and how or what is it, it is not the true self of what he is thinking but of the sakkäyaditthi self, being thereby a victim of asmimäna. Any exercise in proving by means of logic or dialectics that the self exists or does not exist after liberation and any obsession regarding such existence or non-existence of the self are upshots of asmimäna" (Self & Non-Self in Early Buddhism, pp. 304-5).
This is not accurate as to early Buddhism. The self is never described as transcendent nor ineffable. The self (understood as something permanent and unchanging) is not found at any time nor in any way.
I get how everyone is saying that wether or not the historical Buddha was a real person isn't the point, and I agree that the teachings are the thing people should focus on, but that wasn't the question..
Since the name "Siddharta Gotama" appears 4 or 5 centuries after the supposed life of the Buddha, it is rather clear that it is a name invented to give thickness to the character of the legend, which spreads around the same time. But what seems more trustworthy is that the clanish name of the Buddha was Çakya.
Well it's the name "Siddhattha" that doesn't occur in the early texts; the Buddha is referred to by the name "Gotama" all the time, and as you note, "Sakyamuni" or "Sage of the Sakyas".
@@DougsDharma Ah ! Thanks. I didn't know that the earliest texts mentioned the Buddha as Gotama. I had heard that the first references to this name and the early Buddha's life appeared in the vinaya pittaka.
The problem with skeptics and cynics is that they take lack of archaeological evidence about the Buddha as evidence that the Historical Buddha didn't exist
Well yes. It's most likely that the archaeological remains from the Buddha's day were perishable, made mostly of wood and the like, and so little remains.
The thing about this is just like religion, it does not matter if Jesus, Moses or the Mohammed really existed (I think they all probably did). Even if they did not, the people who came up with the stories were clearly of that calibre of enlightened thinking. You don't write things in the way they write things unless you know something. Just like Martin Luther king, if he existed 2000 year ago I think we would know of him too. Simply because at the time, he was surrounded by violence yet did not let it effect his path of peace, people notice this kind of thing. It isn't something that can be ''faked''.. not when you are living in it and effected by it. I don't talk about super natural things, I just mean simply the morals involved, those can't be faked as they come from a pure opposition to bad actions. Besides, even if they were all liars, the morals they preached etc were very positive.. so that's a good ''worse case'' situation to be in.
@@DougsDharma Muchas gracias por responder, he estado viendo el contenido de su canal y he visto varios videos con buenos temas explicativos, solamente me llamo la atencion que en tiempos de Buddha el establecio la triple gema: Buddha-Dhamma-Sangha, y pense que es es un budismo secular, si su conceptualizacion es laical sin vinculacion monastica, entonces no es completamente Buddhadhamma. Saludos desde Peru.
This is not a new question. In the 2nd century BCE, Indo-Greek Menander asked same question to Ven. Nagasena. How much proof is sufficient to believe that Buddha existed really? It depends on individual. For me, the teachings of Buddha, the rituals, the unbroken history of Sangha and archaeological evidences are sufficient to believe that Buddha was historical.
If the Buddha, or rather Siddhartha as in the Herman Hesse novel based upon the historical Buddha Gautama or Shakyamuni, was entirely legendary or mythical, then his followers would have made him a god in order to make the fictional entity more competitive with Hindu avatars such as Krishna. That’s my story and I’m sticking with it. Admittedly, I am at least a do-it-yourself Buddhist, but did actually attend a Chinese lineage Pure Land/Ch’an Buddhist temple here in west Cleveland known as Cloudwater Zendo. I am not annoyed with them in any way but no longer attend group meetings of any sort owing to the ongoing pandemic which of course is not yet over, contrary to what all the cheerfully oblivious people who seem not to mind contracting COVID-19 multiple times while dutifully reporting for their booster shots may think.
He exist as counterpart jains and Hindu wrote about him And the supernatural things u talking about is ,i dont know but i believe that with meditation one can achive that ...i do not know why but yes i Belive on that ...
Buddha did indeed exist during his era and now in spirit form. Buddha don't have a form but a mental form (formless) He has omniscience manifestation presence in every household who has his figurine and my homr figurine has this presence which we have prayed for more than 50 years. He seldom do and may come to people dreams to give advise. At one point I experienced his present. I and my father quarel very badly, he came to my younger brother's dream, lifted his soul in the air and tell him to tell us not to quarel. This made my father jery happy, smile and did not quarell with me after that.
Thanks Wendy. In the early suttas the Buddha declined to answer whether he would exist, not exist, both exist and not exist, or neither exist nor not exist after his death. It was one of his famous "unanswered questions": ua-cam.com/video/59FXAW3AS2I/v-deo.html
With Jesus though, isn't there very little to no historical records of his existence? Wouldn't a very popular figure be recorded by local historians to some degree at least?
If that question interests you, I'd highly recommend Bart Ehrman's book on the topic. He is one of the leading experts on early Christianity but is not himself Christian and does not engage in apologetics. But the short answer is that Jesus was not very popular during his lifetime. He was basically a small-time Jewish apocalyptic prophet; one of many. His rise to prominence came through people like Paul and Emperor Constantine.
@@DougsDharma Yes, I've read Ehrman's books -very good. I also enjoyed Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Friedman, really well done. And Schumann's The Historical Buddha is very good too. With regard to Christ though, what you say is true regarding how he got popular. Still, it seems to indicate Jesus and his miracles may be more myth then truth. But yes, he could well have just been a man that lead a small local following. There were many of them existing at the time. Whereas, the Buddha most likely had a fairly large following and made quite an impact, and was wise enough to know that people would deify him, Yet, he was integrated enough in his beliefs to not want this to occur and expressed it.
That's right Dread. I tend to prefer the word "confidence" rather than "faith". We gain confidence in the teaching as we read and understand it, and practice it in our lives.
In my playful mind… I thought… Is Mara directing this man here… Doug… To perpetrate lack faith?…. Who knows…?… Climate change is very debatable to a lot of different scientists…Is Dukkha real…?…Is there a path out?…Is it real to the modern man?…
Well the reality of anthropogenic climate change hasn't been debatable to climate scientists for decades now. It is "debatable" to those whose businesses depend on creating greenhouse gases.
Do ever read jinisam jathaka katha and buddist jathaka katha and buddism turn to soup and mixed up with jainism story since 2500 bc or early not real story
Just like in the case of Jesus and Mohammed, there is no objective contemporaneous evidence or attestation that Buddha existed. There is plenty of objective evidence that Buddha is a mythological figure...a symbol of the Self or Soul. Ironic how Buddha was a symbol of the Self and to this day Buddhists deny the reality of the Self. Yet this Self is the most obvious thing in our existence...always present...always the case. But this is not an "unchanging" Self it is a spiritual entity that is evolving...so always changing. The clinging and attachment to religious figures and symbols and their historical validity is rooted in the ego's insecurity and to those who have not yet achieved Self Realization. When one attains Samahdi and direct experience of the Divine, one does not lose one's Self...one's Self is enhanced and affirmed in an infinite embrace. The real problem is that most humans alive today have a very weak Self and this makes them deny their own Self and causes painful doubt and fear of losing one's existence. This is all egoic hogwash and the result of wrong teaching and false beliefs from taking on 2nd hand, conditioned belief systems without close examination. The adoption and clinging to belief systems is a great hindrance and will prevent one from attainment. When one attains Realization, belief systems, religions, traditions, and cultural conditioning fall away and one attains true liberation.
historical buddha didn't existed all written accounts date back nearly 150-200 years after his death but here is what might have had happened there is a common practice even today . of complete celibacy and renouncement of material life known as Sanyas many a times people used to become sanyasis to search for enlightenment or "bodh" (sounds similar to buddha ;) )in sanskrit all written accounts date back nearly 150-200 years after his death Many a times these Sanyasis used to fake enlightenment and form their own cults Buddhism might have been started as one such heretic hindu cult caste system and oppression of the outcasts was one of the cheif reason for blooming of this cult historically monks passed on their versions of buddha and this made the historic authenticity to go down and it started becoming more of collection of stories of alleged buddha The real bloom to this religion or cult of buddha when Ashoka the Great emperor of the largest indian kingdom converted from hinduism (shaivate )to buddhism his missionaries did the same propaganda as St. Paul did of Jesus
Maybe u should read about the sanghayan that happened after buddhas death. They have been validated 6 times since his death. Last one was done in 20th century buy all the buddhist nations.
Let me be honest with you all. until you study this stuff for years and THEN GO TO THE ORIGINAL SOURCE. Please don’t try to interpret it. It’s not accurate
I think it's safe to assume that most Buddhists, (as Christians, Muslims, etc ) would be disappointed if they could see the real historical person . These men would probably be relatively small, unassuming , missing a few teeth and dressed in old cloth. 😉
@@DougsDharma I remember seeing Asian animation series they have for children, and all the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas were glowing semi gods, with superpowers. It's like growing up with the white robed Christ with a halo and American dentistry. The imagery you see as kid never really goes away.
For me, it really does not matter if the Buddha did or did not exist. his teachings may have bee largely his teachings or from his followers. It really does not matter. The results matter.
Its vitally important to understand that Siddharta is not a historical person, Buddha is a potential within each of us and does not belong to linear historical time lines . The story of siddharta being born from the side of Maya and his birth into kingdom of shakhya is whats known as a katha pravachana, or an oral wisdom story, which originated within the nath sampradaya yogi tradition. These are ancient lineages, that create wisdom stories that all can relate to to journey into the way of becoming buddha or awake. Now why is it essential to understand this. Since the colonials invented isms within the Indian tradition they have created within the history of India that the Vedic priests the Brahmins set up a hierarchy caste system that denied anyone that is not from their caste to study or understand the vedas, and Buddha who attained self enlightenment outside of this tradition within the shramana tradition was a social reformer who denied Brahmanical caste and the authority of the vedas. This has caused a great division within the traditions of India and made a unnecessary dividing line between people. Through Colonial industrial and mechanical education and poor translations these untruths were re taught back the Indians via the empirical learning systems that the west treasures so much as so called real education. This education method and translation system by colonial scholars has caused all the isms and schisms, making false divisions between Sikhism, Jainsim Hinduism and Buddhism. They further made false categories within these systems, such as hinayana as belonging to sanskrit pali traditions of Theravada within Sril Lanka, Thailand, and Myanmar , both Sri Lanka and Myanmar was very heavily under attack by colonials whose sole aim was to destroy the cultures. Within the so called Hinduism they have done the same, making false division is shaivism, Vaishnavism and shaktism, there is no Sanskrit equivalent to ism, dharma which means the innate nature of awakened mind has no such distinctions and philosophical conceptual understanding. These people know nothing about consciousness and how it awakens and how it is preserved in oral traditions. Still to this day these isms and schisms are destroying native systems, but western colonial industrial educated people both form Asian and western backgrounds cant see past their own sense of false education and self importance learned from reading books written by deluded people with no natural insight and humility to understand the ancient dharma and spiritual systems that have been preserved and evolved over thousands if not millions of years. Sadly these book people will never develop insight or humility to know what is the truth because they are so fascinated by the external word written by backward educated people from the industrial age. It maybe true to say it doesnt matter, in one sense that it true, but it is also true that the truth should be told and we can help to preserve and be [art of the solution that dharma traditions stay harmonious and left alone by big headed arrogant industrial educated people who know nothing.
Well writing wasn't available during the Buddha's day, and it's believed that the suttas and so on were not written down until several centuries after his death.
They had writing.. in the time of the Budha. Its just that the founder of buddhism deemed not to write his work down. So 2 century after death they started to built a memoire of Gotama chanting into text. Or something like that...
Its only 500 years before the arrival of the Christ.. was there any writing before? What im saying is Brhamin text was at there disposal they didn't used it. Im not Indian but i know for certain ' not all was shared to the world . Buddhism is at first chanting oral history fact of the Journey and teaching of Gotama . No writing didn't mean India had no form of literature.
The vast majority of human religions began with a single individual. First, you have to present an argument why you think Buddhism is an exception to this rule before you can even begin the questioning about whether Buddha actually existed.
Let me tell you my experience. Now remember I am a 31 yro white American, never thought I would end up marrying a foreigner, not because I didn’t want to but just never considered it. My wife of 5 years is Thai. I have had a fascination towards Buddhist Philosophy, MetaPhysics and spiritual beliefs........ when I found myself at age 30, I was able to become a Theravada Monk. Only Thai citizens without drug problems or legal issues can do this. You can go to a foreigners temple in Chiang Mai or something but that’s totally different. I had to memorize pages upon pages of Pali scripts from the Tipitaka (Pali for the 3 Jewels or baskets of Buddhism). Also I had to learn the Initiation suttas of monkhood. There have been Buddhist Councils where they officially made changes which are all documented. But I have to tell you, the Temple I was in was 650 years old. Renovated over the years and kept immaculate, you would hardly tell. I very quickly learned how you start to rely on mental memory as opposed to reading.
Both awakened beings (Buddha) and savior figures (Jesus) are best seen archetypally, as symbolic personifications, generated by the objective psyche--to some degree as unconscious images collectively bubbling up to the surface of consciousness--representing individuated potentials. If an actual, historical person comes close enough to realizing one of these idealized archetypal potentials, they will become the recipient of mass projections of these pre-existing ideals, thus showing that, to some extent, such realization of an ideal is possible, acting as an encouraging example. But any particular historical personage here or there is not what should be considered authoritative, original and conclusive. It is often a lack of mythopoetic insight, inner gnosis and awareness of persistence of pattern in the manifold phase space of existential possibilities which leads to literalist dogmas and preoccupation with historicity. Until purist Buddhist types meet the inner Jung this won't make any sense to them. A hindrance to such understanding is that they are taught to allow the thought forms which arise to pass without clinging. Ultimately, that is very healthy and necessary, but it is also healthy and necessary, once having allowed the usual shallow egoic thought stream to subside, to hold in contemplative awareness those deeper thought forms which then emerge, and slowly build up an intersubjective mapping of those objective, quasi-universal motifs which form the myths (ie, the collective dreams). Then it can even be seen how Jesus is Buddha, simply portrayed imagistically in psyche's older language. That then becomes a bridge of compassion, tying worlds together. Further, this kind of mythopoetic or archetypal awareness informs the narrative arc of a person's life--a vital aspect which Buddhist teachings tend to gloss over with their (admittedly brilliant) insight into anatta. How to engage the narrative arc without identifying self in any of it--that is Buddha meeting Jung in the middle.
Well to use logic. The Hindu wouldn't make him up.He wasn't into worshiping gods. I see abrahimic religions always gave power to people. I'm not talking about spiritual power either.
The problem is that there is NOTHING recorded about Christianity in any traditional Jewish texts such as the Talmuds and Midrashim. There is no evidence for Jesus and Paul outside of official Church dogmas, and the reasonable conclusion is that Christianity was invented in the 4th century during the days of Constantine and thereafter. Similarly there are very strong reasons to say that the Muhammad of Islam did not exist, and that the Muslim religion emerged in the 7th and 8th centuries under the Abbasids based on some Abrahamic ideas held by Arabs opposed to Trinitarian Christianity from the time of Caliph Abdel Malik and even somewhat earlier.
It's a wonderful thought experiment, if your practice is based on 'Faith' in the existence of a historical figure it has weak foundations, if it is based on your own experience and reflection you are on a much stronger footing. The first time I read the Kalama sutta I was astonished that a 'religious' text would encourage free enquiry, I would encourage everyone to study it.
Thanks John, it seems that way to me as well. But to be fair the Buddha did talk about saddhā-anusārī, or faith-followers, who attain awakening due to a practice grounded in faith. (He also noted others who attain awakening due to other practices, such as knowledge of the dhamma). For more on the Kālāma sutta, check out my video: ua-cam.com/video/Aa5cyQBBy-g/v-deo.html
@@DougsDharma I agree that it doesn't matter if he existed as long as the teachings work. But for that to happen too there needs to be something like faith in that teaching first. If the person was real or even if a fictitious story has been retold many generations gives it more merit. To be motivated to practice anything requires belief that the practice will work. Initially, however, we need some authority figure or text in which we will suspend disbelief long enough for faith to take hold. It may seem irrational to suspend disbelief but we do it all of the time in order to open ourselves to new things. We open ourselves to things which we may not understand, but things that fulfill or save our lives. Paradoxically, that is rational. Personally, I hope to at least think through the consequences of having faith in something. If the benefits seem likely to outweigh the costs then perhaps I will accept some mysticism (things I don't understand fully). Doing this will allow me to always hold myself (not Buddha) accountable for that choice and my actions.
Agreed Dusan, we do need to be willing to take something of a chance just to check something out. That said, there may be occasions where our understanding of the world keeps us from making mistakes by avoiding chances that are unlikely to prove fruitful. It just depends on the case.
Great explanation of a debate that exists in almost every major religion. As a Buddhist, it is of little importance for me if Siddhartha Gautama ever existed. I would rather focus on the way of life but it is a fascinating debate. Growing up in Sri Lanka I studied Buddhism as a part of my school curriculum. Theravada Buddhism teaches that Siddhartha Gautama was real, stating the very facts that you mentioned found in the Pali cannon. And as you mentioned there's plenty of elements in the texts that are difficult to believe. But what struck me was the humanity that came through in the "stories" about the Buddha. That underneath the layers of texts of the centuries the human being/ teacher that had or ( may have) lived and taught comes through at times. After all the Thripiraka was supposedly written by monks who were facing a crisis in the form of a dilution what was considered the authentic teachings of the Buddha. I would expect some fabrication and exaggeration of the truth.
From the secular perspective, the burden of proof is hard. However, from the Buddhist perspective, it's very hard to imagine the notions of emptiness and no-self simply coming into being without some exceptional being behind it. These teachings as so profound, multi-faceted, subtle, contradictory on the surface but not deep down. For me it's like being in a room with drawn curtains by day. You see disparate rays of light coming through at different angle. Then, by examining them, all the angles and the brightness, you conclude there must be an incredibly bright common source for them.
I think so Andrés. It's more likely that all these monastics were incredibly inspired by a unique individual than that they somehow cobbled it all together on their own.
The philosophy is what I focus on more than anything else. Even if there was concrete evidence that the Buddha didn't exist I would still believe in components in Buddhist philosophy. In psychology here are certain therapies like DBT which are based on Buddhist principles. There's also proof that meditation works and that it can positively alter the brain in certain ways. A lot of what the Buddha preached ended up being backed up by science later on. "DBT combines standard cognitive behavioral techniques for emotion regulation and reality-testing with concepts of distress tolerance, acceptance, and mindful awareness largely derived from Buddhist meditative practice. DBT is based upon the biosocial theory of mental illness and is the first therapy that has been experimentally demonstrated to be generally effective in treating BPD. The first randomized clinical trial of DBT showed reduced rates of suicidal gestures, psychiatric hospitalizations, and treatment drop-outs when compared to treatment as usual. A meta-analysis found that DBT reached moderate effects in individuals with borderline personality disorder."
As a practicioner I'm mainly interested in practice-related questions. Whatever can inspire me in this regard is more than welcome. Concerning the historical correctness, the Zen tradition has similar problems. But I don't mind. The Masters (their lives or "lives", their texts and sayings) inspire me a lot, and that's enough. That even applies to totally fictional characters like Tom Bombadil, Gandalf, Rieux, Nietzsche's Zarathustra... Thanks for the video! 😊
Sure, you're welcome xiao mao! I find the historical questions fascinating in their own right, but yes the dharma message is the most important, history be what it may.
Buddha was very much a historical person. We know people he interacted with. It would be stupid to say he was not a real person. Yes there is a lot of mythology around him but at the core, there was a real person who started this buddhist movement and that was the Buddha.
Doug's Dharma yes Doug he interacted with Ajatashatru and His father Bimbisara who were the rulers of Magadha at the time and they were 100% real people and Buddhism started in Magadha. He also interacted with some Hindu and Jain gurus before coming up with his own path. The story of his mother seeing the dream and the elephant and his father shielding him from his childhood and him being born from side of this mother are all myths that were made up later...but we can be relatively certain that he came from a Hindu warrior clan background and then eventually later in life started the Buddhist movement .
There were 28 Buddha's ,a lot of archelogy proves existence of Buddha ,like ashokan edicts prove existence of various Buddha's While such is not case with Hinduism it's based or mythology
We have writings that says he interacted with people. I have seen video footage of Forrest Gump and read writings of him interacting with at least one USA president, yet it would be stupid to say he was a real person.
.”He who sees Dhamma, sees me” (vakkali sutra) .....research ,practice and investigate till you clear your doubt then one will understand the meaning of above statement..
As a former Theravada Buddhist, I would say it mattered to me whether the "words of the master" were real or not. For some time, I was a fundamentalist in the sense of saying the oral tradition was infalible and true, but the search for truth made me see that oral tradition is complicated. Skepticism kicked in and I made extensive research in topics related to that, reaching the conclusion that Gotama probably exist, and that Gotama was his last name and he was an ascetic teacher. No more can be said with certainty.
I enjoyed this video, Doug. It occurred to me while watching that we have something in the case of the Buddha that we don't have with Jesus: bones that purport to be from his cremation. There are one or two, I think, in Sri Lanka, and then the remains that were discovered by William Peppe in India in 1898. The remains were said in ancient times to have been distributed to 5 (?) different recipients. I know there are other temples that claim to have some of these relics. I don't know how much DNA if any can be recovered from charred skeletal remains, but it would be very interesting to do a comparison of these relics to see if they came from the same person, and if the age is right. Of course, that still wouldn't be conclusive evidence, but it would be pretty compelling.
It would be interesting for sure, though as you say, not absolutely conclusive. Relic bones are easy to fake after all, and given their believed powers there would have been reason to fake them.
@@DougsDharma I agree, Doug, but still feel that the exercise would be worthwhile for historical purposes. After posting my comment I researched the matter further and found good documentation from ancient sources about the original disposition of the Buddha's remains and how they were further distributed about 150 years later by King Ashoka. The Peppe find at Piprahwa is quite credible as being the original burial site of the Sakya clan, of which the historical Buddha was a member. After the discovery the remains were given to King Rama V of Thailand who shared them with recipients in southeast Asia and Sri Lanka. While we can never be certain, it seems clear that the person called Gautama (or Shakyamuni) Buddha actually did exist. ua-cam.com/video/UpVDtgFco_8/v-deo.html
one of that relics are in my country indonesia and is being held in candi borobudur. .the place that most usually used to celebrate waisak for all buddhism in the world
Yeah, but modern Christianity NEEDS to have a historical JC, otherwise, it's a NONSTARTER... as you pointed out. But the teachings of the Buddha need no historical person... To explain the immense IMPACT he had on the religious topography of his time (since he lived a long life), it's easier to explain with an actual historical person. Buddhism and Christianity are VERY different, and that would be an interesting exploration to unpack that reality.
For myself, it doesn't matter whether or not Buddha existed. The important part is the teachings, not the person... Would Calculus stop working if Isaac Newton wasn't a real person?
Yes, I think that's a skillful way to approach the problem. Thanks Molch.
@Goldie: I would disagree. The reason why the originator of calculus doesn’t matter is that it works. The same is true of Buddhism. Test the dharma. If works use it - if it doesn’t, walk away.
@Goldie O Buddha told people not to take his word for it, but to try it and see the results for yourself
What I find most profound about his teachings was the one he asked his followers not to believe his teachings at face value but rather try them on yourselves and see if they are true. Sort of like a mathematician would say
The most recent evidence proves he did just FYI. Prior to I believe a year or 3 years ago the only thing that could tie the Buddha to a historical time was King Ashoka who lived 300 years after him. He put up pillars where he taught, marked his place of birth. When his birthplace was excavated, they found this
www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/in-focus-articles/archaeological-discoveries-in-nepal-confirm-early-date-of-buddhas-life/
I agree with Doug's general message that in the Buddhism case, whether or not the historical Buddha existed is not as relevant as the teachings that we have inherited. In my opinion, it seems that in the Christianity case it is more critical to the validity/truth of the religion that the historical Jesus existed, since the religion is fundamentally based on worshipping him (God). Without Jesus existing, the whole story seems to fall apart and if I were a follower of that religion I would consider it absolutely critical that he did exist (which is likely the case). To my knowledge, the Buddha never asked anyone to worship him and instead encouraged skepticism and questioning. Just something I considered while watching this, thanks Doug!
You're very welcome Loren, thanks for watching and for the comment! 🙏
If Jesus did exist like you state, then he said "I AM the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE." - If this is true, then you have to consider why would you follow anyone else?
@@christrevelation4043 and before him in non abrahimic societies ?
@@christrevelation4043 Buddha gave us a way out of all suffering - why would anyone follow anyone else? Krishna said that those who follow him will awaken to to eternal truth - why would anyone follow anyone else? Etc., etc.. The answer is simple - each of us is unique. We see things in a unique way. Therefore different people find comfort and help expressed in different ways. Ultimately it all merges but at the level of the individual we need to follow something which makes sense and works. There is no contradiction - only different ways of expressing that which cannot be expressed.
Lord Buddha, Siddartha, spoke on this many times. Do not worship me. Do not worship rituals. I am not the only Enlightened One , etc
There's a famous quote: Even if the Buddha never existed, everything he said is still true. Not the same with the modern fundamentalist Christian religion.
Well yes, that's one way to put it! 😄
Thank you, Doug! I didn't expect such a detailed and thoughtful answer to my question... which was posed to you in a state of some existential angst, I think. Of course, you are correct in that one's personal practice is about how, not who. The thing is that I want to go beyond my internal practice to the level of being in a Buddhist community. At that level, nearly everything is up for grabs, because of the myriad varieties of "Buddhism the Religion". I have to examine what I am willing or able to believe in, in order to determine which group I would like to align myself with. It has been a long, frustrating, possibly impossible task. At the moment, I still am virtually alone. But, starting next week I'll be leading a regular meditation group at my town's Senior Center. Perhaps that will provide some of the community I'm hoping for.
Again, with thanks,
Tricia
You're very welcome Tricia. That's great news that you'll be leading a local meditation group! Sometimes that's the best way forward: if you can't find what you want locally, make it yourself. It will probably take awhile, and involve many weeks of small groups. But if you keep it up I bet you'll find many willing takers and the group will grow. Don't forget though to publicize as much as you can, and perhaps try to contact people doing MBSR, yoga, or psychologists in the community who might be avenues to others interested in regular meditation. That's very exciting!
Buddha is inside everyone of us , it’s just that we need to realise it 😊😊it’s upto u now to say that it exist or not 😊😊
Great video and very interesting questions, Doug. From my perspective, it doesn’t matter that much whether the historical Buddha existed because of the tradition’s emphasis on Ehipasiko, and because I am a Westerner choosing Buddhism specifically for its suffering-reducing qualities. Therefore, my faith in Buddhism is based (in large part though not entirely) on my personal experience as I investigate the teachings in my life. Where the teachings originated from matter less than my experience with them.
That said, I live in Thailand where the faith-oriented aspects of Buddhism (making merit, for example) play a much larger role than things like meditation, personal investigation, or application of the 8-fold path in everyday life. I believe that the veracity of Buddha’s story is probably very important to practitioners here because of the different approach to the religion.
I would be interested to know what Mahāyāna practitioners in Asia think about the issue. I’m guessing it wouldn’t matter much to them whether the real Buddha existed, but I’m not sure. Any thoughts?
Many thanks!
You're very welcome Charity, thanks for your thoughts! I think the Mahāyāna outlook is more to consider the Buddha a kind of deified or metaphysical presence than an actual human anyway so the question shifts somewhat. We get into issues of "Buddha nature" or emptiness manifesting in all things. This also shades off into questions of whether anything at all "really" exists since all things are empty. So the question shifts. But I imagine each practitioner's interpretation will vary considerably, and at the end of the day faith-based rituals such as prayer or making merit will tend to predominate there as well.
Thanks for your response , Doug. I find that fascinating. Though I’m definitely a Theravada practitioner, I love learning about Mahayana. I would love to see more Mahāyāna-related topics on the channel.
Thanks Charity. In general I find that Mahāyāna material is quite easy to find, but material on early Buddhism and Theravāda is not. That's why I concentrate on the latter two. (Also they are what interest me particularly). But that said I did do an earlier video on the Mahāyāna in case you haven't seen it yet: ua-cam.com/video/wi_hqpIu-vk/v-deo.html
Mahayana is much influenced by the Chinese where gods and deities are believed too although the fundamentals like 4 Noble Truths, Noble 8 Fold Path, Impermanence, Sufferings, Selflessness etc are the same but put in a different manner or title. In Chinese they claimed Mahayana covers more knowledge than Theravada. In practice, I see their biggest difference is their monks and nuns must be vegetarians but they cook themselves in the temple while Theravada are not vegetarians but food given by others. Some Mahayana Chinese worship the Amitabah Buddha who is believed to be a God, I am confused here 🤔. Having said that, I have been observing Thai Buddhism and worried for them, their followers are getting very superstitious and seems to attend Wats asking for blessings more than studying the Buddha's teachings although some basic Buddhism was taught in their education system, more confused 🤭🤔
@@truth8307 Namo Amituofo!
Blessing from Nepal, Land of Himalayas and Birth Place of Gautam Buddha. (Lumbini).
Buddha was born in india (sarughata) modern nepal
Thanks for this video, Doug. I used to want to know so many things in general, including this particular topic. The more answers I received, more questions would arise. It seemed never ending. I came to realize that I wasn't using my time wisely. I stopped asking too many questions and decided to use my time on the Buddha's teachings instead, mostly the 4 Noble Truths and 8 Fold Paths. Knowledge is great, however, wisdom helped me gain more peace, happiness, and love for all beings. Until one follows the path, then one realizes the teachings are all one really needs. I stopped asking about the Buddha altogether.
Yes indeed Puma Houangvilay. It's better to focus on our practice right now than spend time worrying about what might or might not have taken place in the distant past. 🙂
This topic can be summerized with the Spider-Man argument. It does not matter that Spider-Man if fictive, his message that with great power comes great responsibility is still inspiring.
Indeed so Leonhard's Journey. Thanks!
Doug, I have an aunt who recently and unexpectedly died, leaving my mom and her side of the family stricken with grief and sadness. I myself have not had to deal with such grief, as the only immediate family I have are my parents who are still alive. However, their deaths are always in the back of my mind, maybe now more so than before. Of course death, decay, and impermanence are touched upon in many of your videos, as they are very much relevant to Buddhism, but I was wondering if you could do a video concentrating on death/grief through a Buddhist perspective.
Thanks for the suggestion Chris. The question is how to do it properly without seeming too morbid, but I do think it's worth doing if I can get my mind around it. 🙏
Buddha first temple has been found. End of discussion, the guy was real and became enlightened.
Thanks for your input Maunster.
Sorry, Maunster, the excavation of these structures doesn't prove at all that Siddharta Gautama was a historical person. It only proves that at the time when the structures were built , the people who lived there, practiced an early form of Buddhism. And they believed that a teacher called Siddharta had lived and developed the foundations of their faith. The excavation doesn't prove that there was a historical person called Siddharta - just like the excavation of an early church in Bethlehem would not be sufficient evidence that Jesus really existed and that he was born in a stable in Bethlehem. An independent source is needed. And the case for a historical Jesus is better to establish because he is actually mentioned once by the historian Flavius Josephus who was not an early Christian but a romanized Jew. Also, many contemporary people, like Pilate, King Herod, John the Baptist and Paul of Tarsus are well established historical persons. And the earliest written sources - the gospel of Marc and Paul's letters - have been written just a few decades after Jesus' death, while the first Buddhist texts were written a few centuries after a teacher called Siddharta had allegedly lived.
Disclaimer: I am not a religious person who tries to elevate Christianity over Buddhism, and the historical Jesus had probably not much in common with the biblical Jesus anyway. Paul of Tarsus was the guy who almost singlehandedly developed a brand of Christianity which wasn't just meant for Jews and which had an international and timeless appeal.
Personally I am agnostic. But I'm a history buff, who tries to look at the available evidence. And there simply isn't any hard evidence for the existence of a historical Siddharta Gautama. He may have lived, but he could also be a fictional character like Agamemnon, Achilles and Odysseus. And the discovery and subsequent excavation of a bronze age city which probably was Troy, doesn't prove that the Ilias is a historically reliable record and that the characters of the Ilias have really existed.
But does it really matter if the Gautama Buddha is or is not a historical person? I think it's far more important if a belief system offers valuable spiritual insights which help us to live a more fulfilled and just life. Many branches of Buddhism have a lot of valuable and timeless wisdoms to offer - even after more than 2500 years! The same is true for many other religions and belief systems. And story telling is a much more powerful vehicle for spreading these wisdoms than teaching purely philosophical theories.
@@sabineb.5616 I am an ordained Theravada Monk. Pra’ Paphakaro is my temple name. “The one who brings forth the light.” He was a real person, we in the West unfortunately discount oral histories. This case in unique however, because Pali was not a written or colloquial language, and The Buddha chose Pali to keep the truth intacted. I had to memorize the Tipitaka by heart. The first section was 10 pages of prayers.
The Pali Cannon is what I had to memorize. It’s also no coincidence that in Southeast Asia it is year 2653.... do the math
@@sabineb.5616 you have to understand how painstaking it is to learn the Pali Cannon. This process hasn’t changed since 653 BCE
@@manderson7341 , thanks a lot for your very interesting answer.
But as I said already, I have been looking at the question if Siddharta was a historical person or not from a purely scientific point of view. And from that point of view there is simply no irrefutable proof that Siddharta was a real person. And my main point was that the excavation of the temple doesn't change this. It only proves that the people who built the temple practiced Buddhism. And even the most painstaking oral tradition is not sufficient proof if an independent source is missing.
I think that the Ilias and the Odyssee which have been allegedly composed by a blind poet called Homer, are a very good example. These great epic poems have been preserved orally over many centuries, because ancient Greeks had become illiterate after the so-called bronze age collapse which took place in the East Mediterranian areas. It's mindboggling to imagine how these wonderful epic compositions have been orally preserved over so many centuries. Legions of performers and singers must have memorized every single verse and must have taught their students to memorize the poems as well! Most historians believe now that the story of the fall of a splendid city called Troy has roots in very real events during this bronze age collapse. Most experts also believe nowadays that the location of Troy is in modern Turkey and exactly at the spot where Heinrich Schliemann started to dig in the second half of the 19th century. But the fact that Troy actually existed doesn't prove that Achilles, Agamamnon, the beautiful Helena and my personal favorite, the smart trickster Odysseus are historical persons.
That said, there is no indication either that an enlightened teacher called Siddharta Gautama did not exist. But does it really matter? I really don't think that teachings which are full of fundamental wisdom become less valuable if the source of these teachings isn't just one historical person but rather many anonymous teachers who found it easier to preserve their teachings by telling wonderful stories about a prince called Siddharta who decided to leave his material position behind in order to seek for something much more valuable. Siddharta may or may not have been real. But the teachings are real. They definitely exist.
I grew up in a Christian household, and I remember that I was very surprised when I eventually learned that Jesus had actually existed! I had always thought that the stories about Jesus had been a vehicle for making Christian teachings more accessible. And I was not altogether wrong. The historical Jesus has probably very little to do with the so-called Christ and the Christian faith which developed after Jesus' death. The same may well be true if Siddharta was indeed a historical person just like Jesus and Mohammed. There is no way to know for sure if Siddharta's original teachings have been accurately preserved over more than 2000 years. The likelihood is very slim IMO because each following generation will adapt and modify traditions to the needs and circumstances of their own times. But as I said already, that does not make the teachings less valuable.
What an excellent video and I could not agree more on your final thoughts . To be blunt the real question is “ does it work ?” . It cannot be any more clear.
Thanks Nc! 🙏
Nice content, I like these history lessons :)
Glad to hear it Lorenzo, thanks!
Taken together, the depth, intricacy, uniqueness and contemporaneousness of the earliest texts point to a single source.
@Robert Williamson Thanks. Interesting.
I agree Crow, most likely a single source.
One of your best videos. Key comparisons with Christianity was important to illustrate how Buddhism is so powerful that it doesn't even matter if historical Buddha existed or not
Yes, I agree that it doesn't really matter. 🙏
i used to have that skepticism when i was young since many stories about him seem impossible to be real stories. and it grew stronger after my education in the usa. now i have no doubt in my mind he really existed and his stories are real. my experience with certain revered thai monks were too overwhelmed for me to continue doubting that.
Yes, well one may also come to the belief that he was a historical person and yet not all the stories about him are accurate. This is usually the case with important historical figures after all.
Thank you for your videos. From what I have learned so far, “the” Buddha exists in all of us, and all we need to do is to awaken the Buddha in us. If we choose to live a kind and mindful life, and manage to maintain that throughout our life’s ups and downs, we are a Buddha.
If the Buddha (Gautama) became enlightened and THEN started teaching, this would mean that he remained as enlightened as humanly possible, IF he was still grumpy at times, as described in some texts 😉
Sure, thanks for your thoughts, Markus.
Doug, you are awesome.
I could listen to you for hours 🙂
Very kind of you to say. 🙏😊
for me, knowing whether Buddha existed or not matters more in terms of spirituality (specially regarding rebirth) than in terms of wisdom. even if the Buddha doesn't exist and rebirth or karma aren't real, Buddhism still makes a lot of philosophical and practical sense to me.
it has been helping me so far and, although I still struggle with life sometimes, I have been more at peace with some stuff than I used to before.
🙏😊
Come and see lumbini , Nepal 🇳🇵 and you will know buddha exist or not .
Buddham sanaram gachhami
Thanks Suman! Maybe someday. 🙂
I'm viewing Buddha's presence as a bright lamp till the end of his life, when the flame went out without much traces.
What he left behind might be descendants of many other lamps ( eg. deciples) he lit (taught) through his teaching career
🙏😊
I think it's important, of course, it provides validity to the teachings. Perhaps we will find out in the future.
Indeed so toddviv.
I've been here since last year and I have nothing to do with religion so until I find the right people I'm just answering questions on UA-cam
Hi Doug, I have always felt that the Buddha was a teacher of practical philosophy and Ashoka was the founder of 'Buddhism' as a religion. A religion needs to lend some supernatural authority to the state in the form of ceremony and hierarchy. Is it possible to pick the original message out of the religion?
Well, it's an interesting hypothesis but I don't really know of any evidence for it. We have to be careful not to read modern ideas back into ancient thinkers and texts. The evidence is that the Buddha had a lot of beliefs in the supernatural, as would only be natural given the time period in which he lived. As for Asoka, there isn't any evidence that he changed Buddhist teaching, although he certainly seems to have acted to spread the dhamma widely. Indeed he may have been responsible for Buddhism's joining the rank of world religions -- in the sense that without him, the Buddha dhamma might simply have died out. Asoka was also commendably secular in many respects, and doesn't seem to have been overly taken with devotional aspects of current religious practices. I have an earlier video on Asoka in case you are interested: ua-cam.com/video/V4894Ug8Y3c/v-deo.html
@@DougsDharma Thank you Doug, I will watch with interest, I agree that the original teachings would have to reflect the supernatural beliefs of the time they were written, I don't suppose they would have been accepted otherwise. In my heart I always felt that the historical Buddha was re-interpreting established brahmic beliefs to establish his teachings in a relevant way, I think the way that responsibility for Karma and rebirth is moved from the supernatural to the personal in the Buddha's teachings exemplifies this for me. I think you absolutely right that without Ashoka buddhism would have died out, particularly his export of texts to sri-lanka, I do think the transformation to buddhism as a religion at that lead to the issue of the Buddhda being deified and worshipped which he almost certainly did not want?
Thanks John, it's hard to say. The evidence from the remaining texts is that the Buddha tended to welcome a reasoned faith in his person, and in himself as a personification of the dhamma. I would also shy away from any implication that the Buddha adopted belief in the supernatural as simple expedience. There were other teachers at the time who were materialist, and against whom the Buddha argued pretty strenuously. For more on that see: ua-cam.com/video/aoxagmtSHI0/v-deo.html
The historicity of the Buddha and the early arahants is important as a demonstration that some people reached awakening in their own lifetimes. If they existed then we know that what they called awakening was achievable. If not, then one might seriously question whether the path is practical or merely represents an unreachable ideal.
Hello Doug, I'm surprised you didn't touch on the documentary "The Bones of the Buddha" . Maybe you can expand on that ? Enjoy listening , you break it down w/ Metta Robert
Good catch Robert. I think the video was long enough as it is, there is indeed other evidence though my understanding is that the Piprahwa relics still remain controversial in scholarly circles. Personally I remain skeptical about supposed direct relics, since historically they have been faked so very often. That said, even the existence of supposed relics does lend weight to the idea that people near to the Buddha's lifetime believed him to have been a real person.
I see this is a rather old video but interesting. I like the end comment about if the question of Buddha existence, that it doesn't really mater for practicing the teachings of the "Buddha". I am no Buddhist but I explore meditation and it does me a lot of good.
Im budhist and if he existed him gonna be SO HAPPY!!!
🙏😊
A Life of Love...Kindness...Compassion...and Joy as starting pillars of your Path....seems more important to me. It was soooooooooooo long ago. The aforementioned qualities for your Path are Timeless....and more important...in the here and now.
That's right, practice along the path is what's important. Thanks!
it wouldn't matter much whether the historic Buddha existed as long as the teaching, the dhamma is relevant however one could find the ruins of building materials in Lumbini , Nepal just next to Ashokan pillar which marks the birth of Lord Buddha.
That's right, Razen. Thanks.
This is the topic I had waiting for.
Good, glad to hear Sarada! 🙂
Apple still falls when ripen subjected to1 G even if Newton was not there. It still
True dr kok! 🙂
Maybe you’ve covered this before, as I’m fairly new to your channel, but why do you say the Buddha’s original personal name was Sidhatta Gotama instead of Siddhartha Gautama? I’ve always heard & read his name as Siddhartha, never really seen it written as Sidhatta before. Is there any significance in the meaning of the different name?
It's the Pāli version, rather than the Sanskrit.
Great video. Though from my understanding, historians agree that the first Buddhist writing existed 500 years after the Buddha, while the gospels first appear only 40 years after the death of Jesus. I think that's important historical point into the possible validity of each account.
Well the first Buddhist writing would be Asoka's edicts, which were written perhaps a century after the Buddha's passing. So it's not really that different. The Buddhist canon was first written down perhaps in the 1st c. BCE, which would make it around three to four centuries after his death.
@@DougsDharma Good to know! Thanks for sharing.
@@DougsDharma, for me, the key-argument/question would be: What hard facts---according to current scientific standards---do we have on this semi-legendary figure of Gautama Siddharta?
The answer seems to be: We really don´t know much about life and work of this (proto-)Yoga practitioner and teacher.
On the other hand, we witness a formative period in Indian culture (Hinduism, Jainism, and other "systems" began to form, etc.).
So we may fairly well assume that, if there was indeed a person called the "awoken one" Muni of the Shakya-clan, his teachings were, for a big part, in accordance with the "spiritual mainstream" of his times (one reference, e.g.: Herbert von Guenther, "Buddha").
What we also may assume with some certainty is: Heated debates about the right transmission and the exegetics of certain key-concepts set in very soon after the Buddhist Sangha had established itself, like: a) "Is time real?" b) "Are past-times and future-times as real as the present time(s)?" c) "What >matter< is time, anyway?" d) "What do the >anâtman-doctrins< really say/mean?" "What is meant by Nirwâna?" (Some say "it´s utmost bliss", some say it´s "utmost annihilation", some say it´s "something totally different", and so forth).
So, for a short personal conclusion: If there was a historical Gautama Siddharta, we do not know exactly, today, how his life and work informed the later Buddhist Movement, which obviously more and more unfolded complex own dynamics inside the "old" Eastern, and Far Eastern cultures (via the main branches of the Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana, which also mixed with certain elite-cultures and folk-cultures).
And the same might apply, mutatis mutandis, to the Christian one, too. For example, it is not even totally clear, if the figure of "Jesus the Christ" is somehow an artificial one, insofar, from some angles, it seems to unite several diverse historical persons into one "main narrative" (and the picture is even still more complicated by the many apocryphons that we find outside the canonical gospels), which would allow for the explanation of some discrepancies inside the "main-character": in one episode pacifist, in another rather revengeful, sometimes more a healer, sometimes more an apocalyptic prophet, and so forth (as critical thinkers, like Bertrand Russell, already keenly observed), but that´s another story...
It doesnt really matter to me if he was a real person or a wise fable - either way I can learn the same lessons from the story of his life.
That's right, it doesn't really matter to our practice.
I am privileged to speak on this. Yes he existed, no doubt. I was a Theravada monk , you have to understand that The Pali Cannon was written in a language that was not the common tongue. I had to learn the Vinaya Pali Suttas to initiate as a monk. Trust me the bias that oral history (in the West) is impossible. TRUST ME ITS NOT. Thanks
Thanks for your input Michael.
Some one follows the doctrines of the Dhamma, he shows the Buddha.
......
🌹
🙏😊
Although I think like most other people that it's not important whether he existed or not as the importance is the teachings, I still feel that he must have existed and an enlightenment state as a Buddha must be real based on the followings:
1) With so much detailed teachings like the 6 sense doors, 52 or 54 phenomenons of the mind, 5 Hindrances, such details in the Abhidhamma and knowledge on Mindfulnes, who an ordinary people could have know so much if Buddha or such level of enlightenment don't exist ? His teachings are not mere mythologies or claims of beliefs but so "scientific" of its own and irrefutable, at least till now 🤔
2)If all his knowledge are given by someone else, who would have done it and stay anonymous without wanting credits ? The only possibility is a god 🤣
3)Since the Buddha's teachings are so much on non-selfishness and non-self, it's more unlikely that anyone will want to fake a story for such aim.
4) I never believe in enlightenment until I practised meditation in recent years and so much extraordinary knowledge which I could not have thought of came into my mind suddenly eg 500 witnesses to Jesus's resurrection "probably" copied from Buddha's 500 arahants and the future Buddha combined, Hindus not eating beef and Muslims not eating pork are evidence of rebirth ? And others 😇
Thanks for your thoughts on this Stanley. 🙏
U can see that some one guy had a breakthrough just from the material.
Well that would be nice! 😄
I am sorry Doug but I think that this will be the last video of this series that I will watch; they are coming out thick and fast and moving away from what matters most - that is the question of how best to PRACTICE the Buddha-Dhamma. It seems to me that far better than relying on the dry, humourless and pedantic presentations of Richard Gombrich, it would be better to go to the commentaries on the Vinaya and read some of the stories that are the source for many of the most important rules for monks and nuns. Some of these are very funny. The Buddha was a recluse and later a monastic. He, like most people in ancient India, was well aware of the behavioural requirements expected of renunciates; If those were not met, then people would not offer food or medicines. But, with the founding of monasteries, the Buddha deemed it necessary to institute some basic rules for communal harmony and to protect the integrity of his monks and nuns. Some of those source stories are very funny and show, very clearly, that the Buddha was indeed a living human being! No need to ask Richard Gombrich! 😂
No worries Alan, my focus is more on dharma and history and less on practice simply because I feel practice is best instituted by oneself. Videos can't practice for you, and you can't practice by watching videos. So the videos are for dharma discussion, finer points, and so on. 🙏🙂
To my knowledge, Before Lord buddha's death ( we say parinirwanaya). He had some plans to control his tradition and followers. So, He said that after his death, the next leader of the buddhist community will be Dhamma itself. No monk or king was appointed as the new leader. Lord buddha once said. One who understands the Dhamma he will see Buddha in his lifetime ( not after the death)
That’s right dulanga, the Buddha asked us to be islands and refuges unto ourselves, and to take the dhamma as our island and refuge. I have mentioned this before on my videos. 🙏
None of us who have existed after the time of the Buddha truly know if the Buddha existed. Unless of course if individuals were at the same time/place as the Buddha. Therefore, all we have is hearsay, rumors, or potential speculation. Assuredly whether he did exist or did not exist there could be some kind of gray area also known as the teaching of the middle way. We could say this for the debate of Jesus and other figures.
I agree, doesn't matter if he existed what matters is the way and the wisdom. I believe he existed historical. Satoshi Nakamoto was probably not real, but that doesn't make bitcoin stop working. 😅
Not only buddha but one previous buddha whose name was konaakamanasa inscription is also found in nigali sagar in nepal.. and not only this we have a stupa in mohanjodaro of indus valley civilization which gives too much strength to history of buddhism in india
The one who see the Dhamma, see the Buddha
Ha! Yes, that's a creative solution to the problem!
GREAT SPREAD OF DHARMA BUDDHA!!!
L0VE FR0M IND0NES!A BUDDH!ST!!!
Thanks Haikal!
A great explanation
Thanks Odin, glad you found it useful.
i've long found the striking parallels between Siddhartha and JAIN founder Mahavihra quite telling.
Does it really matter? No. Not if truth is truth.
Yes, well it seems they lived very similar lives as forest renunciants of a sort, though they had very different philosophies. I talk a bit about Jainism in this video about the Buddha’s competitors: ua-cam.com/video/aoxagmtSHI0/v-deo.html
Jainism is way older than Buddhism. Sramara movement within Vedic people(Hindus) resulted into Jainism, Budhism and Ajivika philosophies or religions. I have seen my Jain friends taking about these resemblance with Buddhism and claim to be inspired from them. Siddhartha Gautam(Budha)' Guru Ramaputra also claimed to be a Jain. I do not have much knowledge but I see Buddhism is now changed a lot(branches) whereas Jains are still living those teachings and tradition. It's something I see in majority bcz I have many Jain and Buddhist friends.
Cool thing , bri doug
🙏😊
maybe there is fantasy and reality... we need fantasy for faith that we can become a buddha (whatever that means) and reality is that we need discipline to follow the teachings that guide us to achieve our fantasy. Whether buddha existed or not is just wishful thinking but we need to believe it to becomes buddhas ourselves. If we don't want to become buddhas ourselves then we are not Buddhists.
Well we can want to become enlightened arahants for example, which is different from becoming a Buddha. Becoming a Buddha is something that wasn't contemplated in the early material. Or we can just want to follow dharma practices and become calmer, more peaceful, and more compassionate.
The western world used to believe Buddha didn't exist, or at least that his was also a mostly fictitious supernatural life. It took study of Pali, Sanskrit, Archeology, the Ashokan pillars, resistance to colonialism, and some of the earliest writings and sites. They've found Buddha's father's royal debate chambers so conclude his territory and family existed. Still, inspiring, when most leaned no, Practitioners kept the Way.
If they decided again He didn't exist, I reckon I'd disagree, but even if you [not you Dougie, the world you,] made me say it, by now, practice refuge and precepts still exists. For me. Bows, Jikai
That's right K. percy, the practice is there either way. Thanks for the comment!
Professor Mark Siderits has shown that Buddha never denied the existence of a self. Both Siderits and Joaquin Perez-Remon have shown that Buddha merely denied that the skandhas, in any combination, would qualify as a self. This is non-self, not no-self. Perhaps the situation is simply not captured by these words, and the soteriological interests of Buddha and Buddhists in general are not typically helped by talking in terms of self, though even later Buddhist masters such as Candrakirti said whether one teaches self of non-self depends on upaya. This gets even more complicated when we consider the four absolutes, including the self, taught in the Chinese Mahaparinirvana Sutra.
Right, I discuss how the Buddha never denied the existence of a conventional self in this and several other videos: ua-cam.com/video/wUDnPy6ACG4/v-deo.html
@@DougsDharma he never denied the existence of self, full stop, conventional or otherwise. Pérez-Remón writes:
"As we have pointed out the nature of the true self is never made the subject of discussion. We are only told what is not the self and consequently what the self is not. Beyond that the only thing we are told is that the self is transcendent and therefore ineffable, beyond our powers of comprehension. Hence, if anyone, at any time, concentrates his attention on [the question of] the existence or non-existence of the self after liberation and how or what is it, it is not the true self of what he is thinking but of the sakkäyaditthi self, being thereby a victim of asmimäna. Any exercise in proving by means of logic or dialectics that the self exists or does not exist after liberation and any obsession regarding such existence or non-existence of the self are upshots of asmimäna" (Self & Non-Self in Early Buddhism, pp. 304-5).
This is not accurate as to early Buddhism. The self is never described as transcendent nor ineffable. The self (understood as something permanent and unchanging) is not found at any time nor in any way.
@@DougsDharma I cited an entire academic work that argues for the points I gave the summary for. Simply denying the conclusion is not convincing.
Is King Ashoka to Buddhism as Emperor Constantine is to Christianity?
Hard to say, but there are rough similarities.
I get how everyone is saying that wether or not the historical Buddha was a real person isn't the point, and I agree that the teachings are the thing people should focus on, but that wasn't the question..
Since the name "Siddharta Gotama" appears 4 or 5 centuries after the supposed life of the Buddha, it is rather clear that it is a name invented to give thickness to the character of the legend, which spreads around the same time. But what seems more trustworthy is that the clanish name of the Buddha was Çakya.
Well it's the name "Siddhattha" that doesn't occur in the early texts; the Buddha is referred to by the name "Gotama" all the time, and as you note, "Sakyamuni" or "Sage of the Sakyas".
@@DougsDharma Ah ! Thanks. I didn't know that the earliest texts mentioned the Buddha as Gotama. I had heard that the first references to this name and the early Buddha's life appeared in the vinaya pittaka.
Gautam is the family name and Siddhartha is the name.
The problem with skeptics and cynics is that they take lack of archaeological evidence about the Buddha as evidence that the Historical Buddha didn't exist
Well yes. It's most likely that the archaeological remains from the Buddha's day were perishable, made mostly of wood and the like, and so little remains.
The thing about this is just like religion, it does not matter if Jesus, Moses or the Mohammed really existed (I think they all probably did). Even if they did not, the people who came up with the stories were clearly of that calibre of enlightened thinking. You don't write things in the way they write things unless you know something. Just like Martin Luther king, if he existed 2000 year ago I think we would know of him too. Simply because at the time, he was surrounded by violence yet did not let it effect his path of peace, people notice this kind of thing. It isn't something that can be ''faked''.. not when you are living in it and effected by it. I don't talk about super natural things, I just mean simply the morals involved, those can't be faked as they come from a pure opposition to bad actions. Besides, even if they were all liars, the morals they preached etc were very positive.. so that's a good ''worse case'' situation to be in.
That's right Flowki, in the end it doesn't really matter. What matters is the wisdom of the teachings we have before us.
El budsmo secular tiene alguna vinculacion con alguna orden monastica?
No precisamente. Había algunos monjes con tendencias laicas/seculares, pero no muchos.
@@DougsDharma Muchas gracias por responder, he estado viendo el contenido de su canal y he visto varios videos con buenos temas explicativos, solamente me llamo la atencion que en tiempos de Buddha el establecio la triple gema: Buddha-Dhamma-Sangha, y pense que es es un budismo secular, si su conceptualizacion es laical sin vinculacion monastica, entonces no es completamente Buddhadhamma.
Saludos desde Peru.
This is not a new question. In the 2nd century BCE, Indo-Greek Menander asked same question to Ven. Nagasena. How much proof is sufficient to believe that Buddha existed really? It depends on individual. For me, the teachings of Buddha, the rituals, the unbroken history of Sangha and archaeological evidences are sufficient to believe that Buddha was historical.
I agree Paulo. I hadn’t realized this was discussed in the Milinda Pañha too, I’ll have to take a look. Do you know where it appears?
@@DougsDharma Sure, please look here:www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe36/sbe3607.htm
Great, thanks Paulo!
@@DougsDharma De Nada! Metta!
If the Buddha, or rather Siddhartha as in the Herman Hesse novel based upon the historical Buddha Gautama or Shakyamuni, was entirely legendary or mythical, then his followers would have made him a god in order to make the fictional entity more competitive with Hindu avatars such as Krishna. That’s my story and I’m sticking with it. Admittedly, I am at least a do-it-yourself Buddhist, but did actually attend a Chinese lineage Pure Land/Ch’an Buddhist temple here in west Cleveland known as Cloudwater Zendo. I am not annoyed with them in any way but no longer attend group meetings of any sort owing to the ongoing pandemic which of course is not yet over, contrary to what all the cheerfully oblivious people who seem not to mind contracting COVID-19 multiple times while dutifully reporting for their booster shots may think.
ဗုဒၶ မရွိခဲ့ဘူးဆိူရင္..ဗုဒၶအဆံုးအမေတြ က ဘယ္လိုရွိလာလဲ..! if Buddha is not exist...how is Buddha teaching come out.. and like we are practising today!
He exist as counterpart jains and Hindu wrote about him
And the supernatural things u talking about is ,i dont know but i believe that with meditation one can achive that ...i do not know why but yes i Belive on that ...
Thanks for your thoughts mrunal. 🙏
lol Hindu wrote about Buddha many hundred after budhha dead.
This kind of thing is common it happens with Christianity Islam and even Judaism.
Yes it is quite common.
Buddha did indeed exist during his era and now in spirit form. Buddha don't have a form but a mental form (formless) He has omniscience manifestation presence in every household who has his figurine and my homr figurine has this presence which we have prayed for more than 50 years. He seldom do and may come to people dreams to give advise. At one point I experienced his present. I and my father quarel very badly, he came to my younger brother's dream, lifted his soul in the air and tell him to tell us not to quarel. This made my father jery happy, smile and did not quarell with me after that.
Thanks Wendy. In the early suttas the Buddha declined to answer whether he would exist, not exist, both exist and not exist, or neither exist nor not exist after his death. It was one of his famous "unanswered questions": ua-cam.com/video/59FXAW3AS2I/v-deo.html
QUESTION: any insights or speculations into why this figure might have been made up?
With Jesus though, isn't there very little to no historical records of his existence? Wouldn't a very popular figure be recorded by local historians to some degree at least?
If that question interests you, I'd highly recommend Bart Ehrman's book on the topic. He is one of the leading experts on early Christianity but is not himself Christian and does not engage in apologetics. But the short answer is that Jesus was not very popular during his lifetime. He was basically a small-time Jewish apocalyptic prophet; one of many. His rise to prominence came through people like Paul and Emperor Constantine.
@@DougsDharma Yes, I've read Ehrman's books -very good. I also enjoyed Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Friedman, really well done. And Schumann's The Historical Buddha is very good too.
With regard to Christ though, what you say is true regarding how he got popular. Still, it seems to indicate Jesus and his miracles may be more myth then truth. But yes, he could well have just been a man that lead a small local following. There were many of them existing at the time.
Whereas, the Buddha most likely had a fairly large following and made quite an impact, and was wise enough to know that people would deify him, Yet, he was integrated enough in his beliefs to not want this to occur and expressed it.
@@willp9226 Jesus did definitely exist, no serious scholar doubts his existence. Their doubts lie in his miracles, not his existence.
To me, the cannon is a source to be mined for wisdom. I don’t need to believe. I want a better life now. I never understand the whole faith thing.
That's right Dread. I tend to prefer the word "confidence" rather than "faith". We gain confidence in the teaching as we read and understand it, and practice it in our lives.
In my playful mind… I thought… Is Mara directing this man here… Doug… To perpetrate lack faith?…. Who knows…?… Climate change is very debatable to a lot of different scientists…Is Dukkha real…?…Is there a path out?…Is it real to the modern man?…
Well the reality of anthropogenic climate change hasn't been debatable to climate scientists for decades now. It is "debatable" to those whose businesses depend on creating greenhouse gases.
Do ever read jinisam jathaka katha and buddist jathaka katha and buddism turn to soup and mixed up with jainism story since 2500 bc or early not real story
Guys does it really matter if Siddhartha existed? We still have the dharma and sangha screw the Buddha turn inward and become like a mirror
Buddha existed, because teachings are perfect. If we understand correctly
Do you think Buddhas would describe how someone smells in different ways? You don't feel it anyway.
"Those who see me in form, Or seek me through sound, Are on a mistaken path; They do not see the Tathagata." - The Diamond of Perfect Wisdom Sutra
Just like in the case of Jesus and Mohammed, there is no objective contemporaneous evidence or attestation that Buddha existed. There is plenty of objective evidence that Buddha is a mythological figure...a symbol of the Self or Soul. Ironic how Buddha was a symbol of the Self and to this day Buddhists deny the reality of the Self. Yet this Self is the most obvious thing in our existence...always present...always the case. But this is not an "unchanging" Self it is a spiritual entity that is evolving...so always changing. The clinging and attachment to religious figures and symbols and their historical validity is rooted in the ego's insecurity and to those who have not yet achieved Self Realization. When one attains Samahdi and direct experience of the Divine, one does not lose one's Self...one's Self is enhanced and affirmed in an infinite embrace. The real problem is that most humans alive today have a very weak Self and this makes them deny their own Self and causes painful doubt and fear of losing one's existence. This is all egoic hogwash and the result of wrong teaching and false beliefs from taking on 2nd hand, conditioned belief systems without close examination. The adoption and clinging to belief systems is a great hindrance and will prevent one from attainment. When one attains Realization, belief systems, religions, traditions, and cultural conditioning fall away and one attains true liberation.
So no proof that Buddha lived, despite he supposed to be of royal birth? Wow!
historical buddha didn't existed
all written accounts date back nearly 150-200 years after his death
but here is what might have had happened
there is a common practice even today . of complete celibacy and renouncement of material life known as Sanyas
many a times people used to become sanyasis to search for enlightenment or "bodh" (sounds similar to buddha ;) )in sanskrit
all written accounts date back nearly 150-200 years after his death
Many a times these Sanyasis used to fake enlightenment and form their own cults
Buddhism might have been started as one such heretic hindu cult
caste system and oppression of the outcasts was one of the cheif reason for blooming of this cult
historically monks passed on their versions of buddha and this made the historic authenticity to go down and it started becoming more of collection of stories of alleged buddha
The real bloom to this religion or cult of buddha when Ashoka the Great emperor of the largest indian kingdom converted from hinduism
(shaivate )to buddhism
his missionaries did the same propaganda as St. Paul did of Jesus
Maybe u should read about the sanghayan that happened after buddhas death. They have been validated 6 times since his death. Last one was done in 20th century buy all the buddhist nations.
That’s right Akash, there have been various Buddhist councils.
Buddha does not exist he prevails and currently he is in time travel
Let me be honest with you all. until you study this stuff for years and THEN GO TO THE ORIGINAL SOURCE. Please don’t try to interpret it. It’s not accurate
It depends who's doing the interpreting, and the depth of their knowledge about the suttas and related materials.
Doug's Dharma very true Doug.
I think it's safe to assume that most Buddhists, (as Christians, Muslims, etc ) would be disappointed if they could see the real historical person . These men would probably be relatively small, unassuming , missing a few teeth and dressed in old cloth. 😉
Maybe so!
@@DougsDharma I remember seeing
Asian animation series they have for children, and all the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas were glowing semi gods, with superpowers. It's like growing up with the white robed Christ with a halo and American dentistry. The imagery you see as kid never really goes away.
We are due for another transformative figure in our midst. Maybe female this time.
🙏
For me, it really does not matter if the Buddha did or did not exist. his teachings may have bee largely his teachings or from his followers. It really does not matter. The results matter.
That's right David, thanks. At the end of the day it's the practice and its results that stay with us.
NO !
Its vitally important to understand that Siddharta is not a historical person, Buddha is a potential within each of us and does not belong to linear historical time lines . The story of siddharta being born from the side of Maya and his birth into kingdom of shakhya is whats known as a katha pravachana, or an oral wisdom story, which originated within the nath sampradaya yogi tradition. These are ancient lineages, that create wisdom stories that all can relate to to journey into the way of becoming buddha or awake.
Now why is it essential to understand this. Since the colonials invented isms within the Indian tradition they have created within the history of India that the Vedic priests the Brahmins set up a hierarchy caste system that denied anyone that is not from their caste to study or understand the vedas, and Buddha who attained self enlightenment outside of this tradition within the shramana tradition was a social reformer who denied Brahmanical caste and the authority of the vedas. This has caused a great division within the traditions of India and made a unnecessary dividing line between people.
Through Colonial industrial and mechanical education and poor translations these untruths were re taught back the Indians via the empirical learning systems that the west treasures so much as so called real education. This education method and translation system by colonial scholars has caused all the isms and schisms, making false divisions between Sikhism, Jainsim Hinduism and Buddhism. They further made false categories within these systems, such as hinayana as belonging to sanskrit pali traditions of Theravada within Sril Lanka, Thailand, and Myanmar , both Sri Lanka and Myanmar was very heavily under attack by colonials whose sole aim was to destroy the cultures.
Within the so called Hinduism they have done the same, making false division is shaivism, Vaishnavism and shaktism, there is no Sanskrit equivalent to ism, dharma which means the innate nature of awakened mind has no such distinctions and philosophical conceptual understanding. These people know nothing about consciousness and how it awakens and how it is preserved in oral traditions.
Still to this day these isms and schisms are destroying native systems, but western colonial industrial educated people both form Asian and western backgrounds cant see past their own sense of false education and self importance learned from reading books written by deluded people with no natural insight and humility to understand the ancient dharma and spiritual systems that have been preserved and evolved over thousands if not millions of years. Sadly these book people will never develop insight or humility to know what is the truth because they are so fascinated by the external word written by backward educated people from the industrial age.
It maybe true to say it doesnt matter, in one sense that it true, but it is also true that the truth should be told and we can help to preserve and be [art of the solution that dharma traditions stay harmonious and left alone by big headed arrogant industrial educated people who know nothing.
Buddha: u proving my existence??
Me: yeah
Buddha: no reply
Me: zoned out
🙂
zen
Yhio! The had and still have alphabet. And Boy do they had tales of Gotama and the 1st Sangha.
Well writing wasn't available during the Buddha's day, and it's believed that the suttas and so on were not written down until several centuries after his death.
They had writing.. in the time of the Budha. Its just that the founder of buddhism deemed not to write his work down. So 2 century after death they started to built a memoire of Gotama chanting into text. Or something like that...
There is no evidence of writing in the Buddha's day, nor is it mentioned in the canonical material.
Its only 500 years before the arrival of the Christ.. was there any writing before?
What im saying is Brhamin text was at there disposal they didn't used it. Im not Indian but i know for certain ' not all was shared to the world . Buddhism is at first chanting oral history fact of the Journey and teaching of Gotama . No writing didn't mean India had no form of literature.
You got to know that buddha mean happy person , that is his nick name.
Siddartha Gotama Shakiyamuni is his name.
The vast majority of human religions began with a single individual. First, you have to present an argument why you think Buddhism is an exception to this rule before you can even begin the questioning about whether Buddha actually existed.
Yes, I think it's hard to begin something so unique and integrated by committee.
i cant learn from the life of a person that i cant prove existed, sorry i need proof
What do you consider "proof"?
Let me tell you my experience. Now remember I am a 31 yro white American, never thought I would end up marrying a foreigner, not because I didn’t want to but just never considered it. My wife of 5 years is Thai. I have had a fascination towards Buddhist Philosophy, MetaPhysics and spiritual beliefs........ when I found myself at age 30, I was able to become a Theravada Monk. Only Thai citizens without drug problems or legal issues can do this. You can go to a foreigners temple in Chiang Mai or something but that’s totally different.
I had to memorize pages upon pages of Pali scripts from the Tipitaka (Pali for the 3 Jewels or baskets of Buddhism). Also I had to learn the Initiation suttas of monkhood. There have been Buddhist Councils where they officially made changes which are all documented. But I have to tell you, the Temple I was in was 650 years old. Renovated over the years and kept immaculate, you would hardly tell.
I very quickly learned how you start to rely on mental memory as opposed to reading.
Both awakened beings (Buddha) and savior figures (Jesus) are best seen archetypally, as symbolic personifications, generated by the objective psyche--to some degree as unconscious images collectively bubbling up to the surface of consciousness--representing individuated potentials. If an actual, historical person comes close enough to realizing one of these idealized archetypal potentials, they will become the recipient of mass projections of these pre-existing ideals, thus showing that, to some extent, such realization of an ideal is possible, acting as an encouraging example. But any particular historical personage here or there is not what should be considered authoritative, original and conclusive. It is often a lack of mythopoetic insight, inner gnosis and awareness of persistence of pattern in the manifold phase space of existential possibilities which leads to literalist dogmas and preoccupation with historicity.
Until purist Buddhist types meet the inner Jung this won't make any sense to them. A hindrance to such understanding is that they are taught to allow the thought forms which arise to pass without clinging. Ultimately, that is very healthy and necessary, but it is also healthy and necessary, once having allowed the usual shallow egoic thought stream to subside, to hold in contemplative awareness those deeper thought forms which then emerge, and slowly build up an intersubjective mapping of those objective, quasi-universal motifs which form the myths (ie, the collective dreams). Then it can even be seen how Jesus is Buddha, simply portrayed imagistically in psyche's older language.
That then becomes a bridge of compassion, tying worlds together. Further, this kind of mythopoetic or archetypal awareness informs the narrative arc of a person's life--a vital aspect which Buddhist teachings tend to gloss over with their (admittedly brilliant) insight into anatta. How to engage the narrative arc without identifying self in any of it--that is Buddha meeting Jung in the middle.
Thanks for your thoughts Dan.
Buddha is not God. But he is more than God !
Yes, that's kind of the way the Buddha depicts things in his early discourses: ua-cam.com/video/QOQiZbAPtW4/v-deo.html
Well to use logic. The Hindu wouldn't make him up.He wasn't into worshiping gods. I see abrahimic religions always gave power to people. I'm not talking about spiritual power either.
Yes, thanks Jason.
The problem is that there is NOTHING recorded about Christianity in any traditional Jewish texts such as the Talmuds and Midrashim. There is no evidence for Jesus and Paul outside of official Church dogmas, and the reasonable conclusion is that Christianity was invented in the 4th century during the days of Constantine and thereafter. Similarly there are very strong reasons to say that the Muhammad of Islam did not exist, and that the Muslim religion emerged in the 7th and 8th centuries under the Abbasids based on some Abrahamic ideas held by Arabs opposed to Trinitarian Christianity from the time of Caliph Abdel Malik and even somewhat earlier.
It's a wonderful thought experiment, if your practice is based on 'Faith' in the existence of a historical figure it has weak foundations, if it is based on your own experience and reflection you are on a much stronger footing. The first time I read the Kalama sutta I was astonished that a 'religious' text would encourage free enquiry, I would encourage everyone to study it.
Thanks John, it seems that way to me as well. But to be fair the Buddha did talk about saddhā-anusārī, or faith-followers, who attain awakening due to a practice grounded in faith. (He also noted others who attain awakening due to other practices, such as knowledge of the dhamma). For more on the Kālāma sutta, check out my video: ua-cam.com/video/Aa5cyQBBy-g/v-deo.html
@@DougsDharma I agree that it doesn't matter if he existed as long as the teachings work. But for that to happen too there needs to be something like faith in that teaching first. If the person was real or even if a fictitious story has been retold many generations gives it more merit. To be motivated to practice anything requires belief that the practice will work. Initially, however, we need some authority figure or text in which we will suspend disbelief long enough for faith to take hold. It may seem irrational to suspend disbelief but we do it all of the time in order to open ourselves to new things. We open ourselves to things which we may not understand, but things that fulfill or save our lives. Paradoxically, that is rational.
Personally, I hope to at least think through the consequences of having faith in something. If the benefits seem likely to outweigh the costs then perhaps I will accept some mysticism (things I don't understand fully). Doing this will allow me to always hold myself (not Buddha) accountable for that choice and my actions.
Agreed Dusan, we do need to be willing to take something of a chance just to check something out. That said, there may be occasions where our understanding of the world keeps us from making mistakes by avoiding chances that are unlikely to prove fruitful. It just depends on the case.
Great explanation of a debate that exists in almost every major religion. As a Buddhist, it is of little importance for me if Siddhartha Gautama ever existed. I would rather focus on the way of life but it is a fascinating debate. Growing up in Sri Lanka I studied Buddhism as a part of my school curriculum. Theravada Buddhism teaches that Siddhartha Gautama was real, stating the very facts that you mentioned found in the Pali cannon. And as you mentioned there's plenty of elements in the texts that are difficult to believe. But what struck me was the humanity that came through in the "stories" about the Buddha. That underneath the layers of texts of the centuries the human being/ teacher that had or ( may have) lived and taught comes through at times. After all the Thripiraka was supposedly written by monks who were facing a crisis in the form of a dilution what was considered the authentic teachings of the Buddha. I would expect some fabrication and exaggeration of the truth.
Yes exactly tuluwitiya, it's a complicated history but the humanity shines through.
From the secular perspective, the burden of proof is hard. However, from the Buddhist perspective, it's very hard to imagine the notions of emptiness and no-self simply coming into being without some exceptional being behind it.
These teachings as so profound, multi-faceted, subtle, contradictory on the surface but not deep down.
For me it's like being in a room with drawn curtains by day. You see disparate rays of light coming through at different angle. Then, by examining them, all the angles and the brightness, you conclude there must be an incredibly bright common source for them.
I think so Andrés. It's more likely that all these monastics were incredibly inspired by a unique individual than that they somehow cobbled it all together on their own.
The philosophy is what I focus on more than anything else. Even if there was concrete evidence that the Buddha didn't exist I would still believe in components in Buddhist philosophy. In psychology here are certain therapies like DBT which are based on Buddhist principles. There's also proof that meditation works and that it can positively alter the brain in certain ways. A lot of what the Buddha preached ended up being backed up by science later on. "DBT combines standard cognitive behavioral techniques for emotion regulation and reality-testing with concepts of distress tolerance, acceptance, and mindful awareness largely derived from Buddhist meditative practice. DBT is based upon the biosocial theory of mental illness and is the first therapy that has been experimentally demonstrated to be generally effective in treating BPD. The first randomized clinical trial of DBT showed reduced rates of suicidal gestures, psychiatric hospitalizations, and treatment drop-outs when compared to treatment as usual. A meta-analysis found that DBT reached moderate effects in individuals with borderline personality disorder."
Thanks Afanasi, yes at the end of the day it's the wise philosophy and the practice that make the difference. 🙂
I have to look up DBT to know it stands for Dialectical behavior therapy. I'm putting it here considering there may be other people who don't know.
@@djmuscovy7525 thank you
As a practicioner I'm mainly interested in practice-related questions. Whatever can inspire me in this regard is more than welcome. Concerning the historical correctness, the Zen tradition has similar problems. But I don't mind. The Masters (their lives or "lives", their texts and sayings) inspire me a lot, and that's enough. That even applies to totally fictional characters like Tom Bombadil, Gandalf, Rieux, Nietzsche's Zarathustra...
Thanks for the video! 😊
Sure, you're welcome xiao mao! I find the historical questions fascinating in their own right, but yes the dharma message is the most important, history be what it may.
Buddha was very much a historical person. We know people he interacted with. It would be stupid to say he was not a real person. Yes there is a lot of mythology around him but at the core, there was a real person who started this buddhist movement and that was the Buddha.
Yes I think the historical material we have makes that pretty clear Sid, thanks.
Doug's Dharma yes Doug he interacted with Ajatashatru and His father Bimbisara who were the rulers of Magadha at the time and they were 100% real people and Buddhism started in Magadha. He also interacted with some Hindu and Jain gurus before coming up with his own path.
The story of his mother seeing the dream and the elephant and his father shielding him from his childhood and him being born from side of this mother are all myths that were made up later...but we can be relatively certain that he came from a Hindu warrior clan background and then eventually later in life started the Buddhist movement .
There were 28 Buddha's ,a lot of archelogy proves existence of Buddha ,like ashokan edicts prove existence of various Buddha's
While such is not case with Hinduism it's based or mythology
We have writings that says he interacted with people. I have seen video footage of Forrest Gump and read writings of him interacting with at least one USA president, yet it would be stupid to say he was a real person.
Yes my country has alot of evidence to bc Buddha visited at the beginning. We have footprints,ancient ruins and literature
.”He who sees Dhamma, sees me” (vakkali sutra) .....research ,practice and investigate till you clear your doubt then one will understand the meaning of above statement..
That's right nik, it's a great statement of the dhamma.
As a former Theravada Buddhist, I would say it mattered to me whether the "words of the master" were real or not. For some time, I was a fundamentalist in the sense of saying the oral tradition was infalible and true, but the search for truth made me see that oral tradition is complicated. Skepticism kicked in and I made extensive research in topics related to that, reaching the conclusion that Gotama probably exist, and that Gotama was his last name and he was an ascetic teacher. No more can be said with certainty.
For those coming after me, if a comment has a gazillion replies, the replies are from some Christian trying to pick a fight.
Gosh I hope not ...
I enjoyed this video, Doug. It occurred to me while watching that we have something in the case of the Buddha that we don't have with Jesus: bones that purport to be from his cremation. There are one or two, I think, in Sri Lanka, and then the remains that were discovered by William Peppe in India in 1898. The remains were said in ancient times to have been distributed to 5 (?) different recipients. I know there are other temples that claim to have some of these relics. I don't know how much DNA if any can be recovered from charred skeletal remains, but it would be very interesting to do a comparison of these relics to see if they came from the same person, and if the age is right. Of course, that still wouldn't be conclusive evidence, but it would be pretty compelling.
It would be interesting for sure, though as you say, not absolutely conclusive. Relic bones are easy to fake after all, and given their believed powers there would have been reason to fake them.
@@DougsDharma I agree, Doug, but still feel that the exercise would be worthwhile for historical purposes. After posting my comment I researched the matter further and found good documentation from ancient sources about the original disposition of the Buddha's remains and how they were further distributed about 150 years later by King Ashoka. The Peppe find at Piprahwa is quite credible as being the original burial site of the Sakya clan, of which the historical Buddha was a member. After the discovery the remains were given to King Rama V of Thailand who shared them with recipients in southeast Asia and Sri Lanka. While we can never be certain, it seems clear that the person called Gautama (or Shakyamuni) Buddha actually did exist. ua-cam.com/video/UpVDtgFco_8/v-deo.html
one of that relics are in my country indonesia and is being held in candi borobudur. .the place that most usually used to celebrate waisak for all buddhism in the world
Yeah, but modern Christianity NEEDS to have a historical JC, otherwise, it's a NONSTARTER... as you pointed out.
But the teachings of the Buddha need no historical person... To explain the immense IMPACT he had on the religious topography of his time (since he lived a long life), it's easier to explain with an actual historical person.
Buddhism and Christianity are VERY different, and that would be an interesting exploration to unpack that reality.