Proof of the existence of Buddha?
- Thread starter Penguin
- Start date
Vajradhara
One of Many
Penguin said:
Namaste Penguin,
well.. we have the relics from the funeral pyre, for instance.
metta,
~v
umm salamah
WhatisYour PurposeInLife?
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I don't get buddhism, hope i don't offend anyone but how come you worship statues? I mean whats it all about? im confused 
Peace!
Peace!
Vajradhara
One of Many
Penguin said:
Namaste Penguin,
thank you for the post.
here is the actual Sutta where this is written:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.5-6.than.html
here's an excerpt from the Sutta:
In the burning of the Blessed One's body, no cinder or ash of the outer skin, inner skin, flesh, tendons, or oil of the joints could be discerned. Only the bone-relics remained. Just as in the burning of ghee or oil, no cinder or ash can be discerned; in the same way, in the burning of the Blessed One's body, no cinder or ash of the outer skin, inner skin, flesh, tendons, or oil of the joints could be discerned. Only the bone-relics remained. And of the 500 twin-wrappings only two were burnt: the innermost & the outermost.
here are some contemporary sites. these two are talking about one of the Buddhas teeth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relic_of_the_tooth_of_Buddha
http://www.lakpura.com/articles/kandy-sri-lanka.html
as for the age of the Buddha Dharma.. that sort of depends.
most Western hemisphere scholars date the arising of the Buddha to somewhere around 565 BCE. the famous 900 CE Buddhist scholar Atisha Dipankara dates the arising of the Buddha to around 2500 BCE. thus, it really depends on whom you are using for a source. however, the actual date within a linear space/time continuum is somewhat irrelevant in terms of the actual practice and so forth. i do admit that it is quite interesting from an academic point of view
metta,
~v
(edited for clarity)
Last edited:
Vajradhara
One of Many
Namaste umm Salamah,
thank you for the post and welcome to CR
we don't worship statues
Buddha Dharma is not based on worship of any sort of being, even though it may seem like that is what we are doing. that is a non-Buddhist view to be sure. in our teachings there is no benefit in worshipping any being since they are all in the same situation that is, subject to karma and rebirth. further, no being can remove the karma of another, as such, each being must apply the antidotes for themselves to move along the path of Awakening.
what it is "all about" is a pretty broad question really however we can condense it down into what we call the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path.
they are:
Four Noble Truths
1. Sentient existence is characterized by the experience of dukkha.
many Western hemisphere transliteration make this term to be "suffering" however, that is a bit restrictive. here is how the Buddha Shakyamuni described it:
a point that i feel should be brought to the fore, at this particular time, is how the word Dhukka/dukkha is transliterated into English, it is my view that the word "suffering" is not sufficient to capture the full meaning of the word, and it is this transliteration that is creating it's own problems.
people seem to have been caught in this manner quite handily.
so... let's talk about dukkha and what it means. the Buddha described it like this:
"Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha."
we can go into the five clinging-aggregates in more depth, if you'd like.
2. what gives rise to dukkha is tanha.
fortunately, that's pretty straight forward as well, what gives rise to dukkha is tanha. tanha is usually transliterated into English as "craving." here's how the Buddha described it:
"There are these three cravings. Which three? Craving for sensuality, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming. These are the three cravings."
3. There is a way to put an end to tanha and dukkha.
4. That way is the Noble Eightfold Path.
The Noble Eightfold Path:
1. Right View
Here's how the Buddha explained this:
And what is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the cessation of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called right view.
2. Right Resolve
And what is right resolve? Being resolved on renunciation, on freedom from ill will, on harmlessness: This is called right resolve.
3. Right Speech
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, and from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
4. Right Action
And what is right action? Abstaining from taking life, from stealing, and from sexual misconduct: This is called right action.
5. Right Livelihood
And what is right livelihood? There is the case where a noble disciple, having abandoned dishonest livelihood, keeps his life going with right livelihood. This is called right livelihood.
6. Right Effort
And what is right effort? There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds and exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen...for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen...for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen...(and) for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, and culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen. This is called right effort.
7. Right Mindfulness
And what is right mindfulness? There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in and of itself-ardent, alert, and mindful-putting aside greed and distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings in and of themselves...the mind in and of itself...mental qualities in and of themselves-ardent, alert, and mindful-putting aside greed and distress with reference to the world. This is called right mindfulness.
8. Right Concentration
And what is right concentration? There is the case where a monk-quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful [mental] qualities-enters and remains in the first jhana: rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought and evaluation. With the stilling of directed thought and evaluation, he enters and remains in the second jhana: rapture and pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought and evaluation-internal assurance. With the fading of rapture he remains in equanimity, mindful and alert, and physically sensitive of pleasure. He enters and remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous and mindful, he has a pleasurable abiding.' With the abandoning of pleasure and pain-as with the earlier disappearance of elation and distress-he enters and remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity and mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. This is called right concentration.
you can check out this site for more detail:
http://www.buddhanet.net/wings_h.htm
metta,
~v
thank you for the post and welcome to CR
I don't get buddhism, hope i don't offend anyone but how come you worship statues? I mean whats it all about? im confused
Peace!
we don't worship statues
Buddha Dharma is not based on worship of any sort of being, even though it may seem like that is what we are doing. that is a non-Buddhist view to be sure. in our teachings there is no benefit in worshipping any being since they are all in the same situation that is, subject to karma and rebirth. further, no being can remove the karma of another, as such, each being must apply the antidotes for themselves to move along the path of Awakening.
what it is "all about" is a pretty broad question really however we can condense it down into what we call the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path.
they are:
Four Noble Truths
1. Sentient existence is characterized by the experience of dukkha.
many Western hemisphere transliteration make this term to be "suffering" however, that is a bit restrictive. here is how the Buddha Shakyamuni described it:
a point that i feel should be brought to the fore, at this particular time, is how the word Dhukka/dukkha is transliterated into English, it is my view that the word "suffering" is not sufficient to capture the full meaning of the word, and it is this transliteration that is creating it's own problems.
people seem to have been caught in this manner quite handily.
so... let's talk about dukkha and what it means. the Buddha described it like this:
"Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha."
we can go into the five clinging-aggregates in more depth, if you'd like.
2. what gives rise to dukkha is tanha.
fortunately, that's pretty straight forward as well, what gives rise to dukkha is tanha. tanha is usually transliterated into English as "craving." here's how the Buddha described it:
"There are these three cravings. Which three? Craving for sensuality, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming. These are the three cravings."
3. There is a way to put an end to tanha and dukkha.
4. That way is the Noble Eightfold Path.
The Noble Eightfold Path:
1. Right View
Here's how the Buddha explained this:
And what is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the cessation of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called right view.
2. Right Resolve
And what is right resolve? Being resolved on renunciation, on freedom from ill will, on harmlessness: This is called right resolve.
3. Right Speech
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, and from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
4. Right Action
And what is right action? Abstaining from taking life, from stealing, and from sexual misconduct: This is called right action.
5. Right Livelihood
And what is right livelihood? There is the case where a noble disciple, having abandoned dishonest livelihood, keeps his life going with right livelihood. This is called right livelihood.
6. Right Effort
And what is right effort? There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds and exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen...for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen...for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen...(and) for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, and culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen. This is called right effort.
7. Right Mindfulness
And what is right mindfulness? There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in and of itself-ardent, alert, and mindful-putting aside greed and distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings in and of themselves...the mind in and of itself...mental qualities in and of themselves-ardent, alert, and mindful-putting aside greed and distress with reference to the world. This is called right mindfulness.
8. Right Concentration
And what is right concentration? There is the case where a monk-quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful [mental] qualities-enters and remains in the first jhana: rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought and evaluation. With the stilling of directed thought and evaluation, he enters and remains in the second jhana: rapture and pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought and evaluation-internal assurance. With the fading of rapture he remains in equanimity, mindful and alert, and physically sensitive of pleasure. He enters and remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous and mindful, he has a pleasurable abiding.' With the abandoning of pleasure and pain-as with the earlier disappearance of elation and distress-he enters and remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity and mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. This is called right concentration.
you can check out this site for more detail:
http://www.buddhanet.net/wings_h.htm
metta,
~v
jiii
...
Well, penguin, I'm not sure what you're looking for as proof, exactly. It seems that the millions of people that seem to think he did certainly exist is not enough to convince you. This is good; who needs to be swayed by others beliefs, anyhow? However, if what you're looking for is some kind of irrefutable, material evidence of his existence, I think you might be a bit let down.
I mean, first of all, even if people CAN produce all kinds of relics from the Buddha's time and claim that so-and-so artifact was from so-and-so time in the Buddha's life, we are still incapable of being entirely sure.
Consider the scandal and confusion that Christians have had trying to unravel the life of Jesus. Firstly, you have the hoaxes...such as the book 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail'. Second, you have mysterious objects that are rumored to exist but that nobody has seen since long past ages of antiquity such as the Holy Grail. Third, you have objects that are of questionable origin such as the Shroud of Turin. It seems that there simply aren't any definite answers.
I think it is very important, in this case, to consider that there is very little we can know most definitely about someone who lived over two-thousand years ago. Although you did ask about the Buddha, I think that an example of the difficulties can be illustrated with an example from Chinese Taoism. Lao-Tzu, one of the most famous sages of Chinese antiquity, second only to Confucius, is largely considered to be a fictitious person in this modern day. Examination of the Tao Te Ching points to Lao-Tzu being a kind of collective personality of many writers that grouped their ideas under his "name". Why do we believe these things? Well, outside of the analysis that we can do of the texts for uniformity, we happen to have an interesting historical aid. Ssu Ma Chien was a historian for the Emperor of China around 100 BC. Nowadays, Ssu Ma Chien is ancient history in and of himself, but in HIS lifetime his job was to record the history of China as it stood in HIS modern day (100BC). Nowadays, Lao-Tzu is about 2400 years old. In Ssu Ma Chien's time, Lao-Tzu was only about 300 years old. Nonetheless, Ssu Ma Chien's attempts at discovering Lao-Tzu's birthplace and knowledge of where Lao-Tzu actually lived yielded no leads whatsoever. That is, a historian that lived over two-thousand years ago was totally unable to determine if Lao-Tzu was real or not, a mere three hundred years after the compilation of the book attributed to his hand. How much luck would we have determining if Lao-Tzu was real now?
Maybe this example is out of place, but I like telling the story about Ssu Ma Chien ;-) Anyhow, I believe that most of what we "know" about ancient spiritual leaders is really very little. Consider that in the span of a single lifetime, icons such as the Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, and Lao-Tzu (if he was real) managed to amaze the world so intensely that reverberations of their life have reached around the world numerous times thousands of years after they died. People like this seem to us to be perfect candidates for historical exploration; after all, if we knew anything about anyone from those eras, wouldn't it be them? Yet, one finds that to the degree that people felt compelled to worship these men in their times, they also felt compelled to glorify them AND to "forget" about those parts of their life that didn't seamlessly fit in with their image as purportedly 'superhuman' religious icons. Consider how many people will know anything about YOU come the year 4006? Chances are, the human race will likely have forgotten you existed a long time ago. Thus, the fact that people like the Buddha and Jesus are STILL incredibly important even two-thousand years after their deaths is a testament to the staying power of a lifetime that changed the very consciousness of mankind as we know it. That's some pretty moving proof. Nonetheless, it is certainly not empirical evidence. All said and done, who can really say if the Buddha existed or not?...only people that saw him with their own eyes. Anything less can be ravaged by skeptics.
I mean, first of all, even if people CAN produce all kinds of relics from the Buddha's time and claim that so-and-so artifact was from so-and-so time in the Buddha's life, we are still incapable of being entirely sure.
Consider the scandal and confusion that Christians have had trying to unravel the life of Jesus. Firstly, you have the hoaxes...such as the book 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail'. Second, you have mysterious objects that are rumored to exist but that nobody has seen since long past ages of antiquity such as the Holy Grail. Third, you have objects that are of questionable origin such as the Shroud of Turin. It seems that there simply aren't any definite answers.
I think it is very important, in this case, to consider that there is very little we can know most definitely about someone who lived over two-thousand years ago. Although you did ask about the Buddha, I think that an example of the difficulties can be illustrated with an example from Chinese Taoism. Lao-Tzu, one of the most famous sages of Chinese antiquity, second only to Confucius, is largely considered to be a fictitious person in this modern day. Examination of the Tao Te Ching points to Lao-Tzu being a kind of collective personality of many writers that grouped their ideas under his "name". Why do we believe these things? Well, outside of the analysis that we can do of the texts for uniformity, we happen to have an interesting historical aid. Ssu Ma Chien was a historian for the Emperor of China around 100 BC. Nowadays, Ssu Ma Chien is ancient history in and of himself, but in HIS lifetime his job was to record the history of China as it stood in HIS modern day (100BC). Nowadays, Lao-Tzu is about 2400 years old. In Ssu Ma Chien's time, Lao-Tzu was only about 300 years old. Nonetheless, Ssu Ma Chien's attempts at discovering Lao-Tzu's birthplace and knowledge of where Lao-Tzu actually lived yielded no leads whatsoever. That is, a historian that lived over two-thousand years ago was totally unable to determine if Lao-Tzu was real or not, a mere three hundred years after the compilation of the book attributed to his hand. How much luck would we have determining if Lao-Tzu was real now?
Maybe this example is out of place, but I like telling the story about Ssu Ma Chien ;-) Anyhow, I believe that most of what we "know" about ancient spiritual leaders is really very little. Consider that in the span of a single lifetime, icons such as the Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, and Lao-Tzu (if he was real) managed to amaze the world so intensely that reverberations of their life have reached around the world numerous times thousands of years after they died. People like this seem to us to be perfect candidates for historical exploration; after all, if we knew anything about anyone from those eras, wouldn't it be them? Yet, one finds that to the degree that people felt compelled to worship these men in their times, they also felt compelled to glorify them AND to "forget" about those parts of their life that didn't seamlessly fit in with their image as purportedly 'superhuman' religious icons. Consider how many people will know anything about YOU come the year 4006? Chances are, the human race will likely have forgotten you existed a long time ago. Thus, the fact that people like the Buddha and Jesus are STILL incredibly important even two-thousand years after their deaths is a testament to the staying power of a lifetime that changed the very consciousness of mankind as we know it. That's some pretty moving proof. Nonetheless, it is certainly not empirical evidence. All said and done, who can really say if the Buddha existed or not?...only people that saw him with their own eyes. Anything less can be ravaged by skeptics.
toujour_333
a simple buddhist
namaste all,
my personal opinion on the matter is very simular to the perspective of jiii. i dont think that there is any way for anyone to prove that buddha or jesus or anyone really existed without having a body to examine, and then still there is some problems with that.
however, my opinion is this. why does it matter whether they really existed or not? i mean, if what the person taught works in your life and helps to make u a happier, better person, then what does it matter as far as proof goes? i mean, granted, it would be nice to have something that could prove that the buddha really existed, however we have to be realistic. more than likely, its not going to happen until the next buddha is born. either way, just apply the teachings and if they work, then great. if not, then search for a more appropriate teaching that works for u. for myself, buddhism fits in every way. but it may not be for some people. thats ok too. just do what works for u. as long as ur not harming anyone and u are doing ur best to be the best person that u can be, i dont see how any deity could punish someone. but, thats my prespective i guess.
be well in peace
my personal opinion on the matter is very simular to the perspective of jiii. i dont think that there is any way for anyone to prove that buddha or jesus or anyone really existed without having a body to examine, and then still there is some problems with that.
however, my opinion is this. why does it matter whether they really existed or not? i mean, if what the person taught works in your life and helps to make u a happier, better person, then what does it matter as far as proof goes? i mean, granted, it would be nice to have something that could prove that the buddha really existed, however we have to be realistic. more than likely, its not going to happen until the next buddha is born. either way, just apply the teachings and if they work, then great. if not, then search for a more appropriate teaching that works for u. for myself, buddhism fits in every way. but it may not be for some people. thats ok too. just do what works for u. as long as ur not harming anyone and u are doing ur best to be the best person that u can be, i dont see how any deity could punish someone. but, thats my prespective i guess.
be well in peace
Awaiting_the_fifth
Where is my mind?
Well penguin, Can I prove that Buddha Shakyamuni really existed?
No, I cannot.
But on the other hand, I can't prove that you exist either.
No, I cannot.
But on the other hand, I can't prove that you exist either.
DT Strain
Spiritual Naturalist
Since Buddhists worship neither Siddhartha (the Buddha) nor his teachings as dogma, it doesn't really matter. What is important is whether or not the practices and teachings in Buddhism are true and work. The best way of determining that is to learn, explore, and practice them so you can see for yourself. This is what Buddhism encourages. Individual human beings, when they lived, and who said what are irrelevant.
Sincerely,
a non-Buddhist, but a Buddhism-enthusiast
Sincerely,
a non-Buddhist, but a Buddhism-enthusiast
Awaiting_the_fifth
Where is my mind?
Penguin said:
I think you misunderstand me Penguin. For all I know, your posts may only be a figment of my imagination. I see things in dreams all the time which turn out not to exist in the real world.
Vajradhara
One of Many
Namaste DT Strain,
thank you for the post.
i would generally agree with your posts.
it is often the case that beings which are approaching the Buddha Dharma from another paradigm seek to use the same methods of investigation which they have used to arrive at their current view. in many cases, this is simply not how things are done within the context of Buddhist praxis.
that said, there is a wide diversity of methods available for a being to use to gain a valid cognition of the Dharma so it can be a bit difficult to pin down.
overall there seems to be a desire to apply modern historical document analysis to the Suttas to determine when they were written and by whom etc. the essential issue with this approach is that it is mistaking the words of the menu for the food, so to speak.
as you correctly note, we do not worship Buddhas nor are their words revered in any specific sense, as a consequence of this, it is the ideas which are being communicated where the thrust of the teachings is felt.
in a very real sense the epistemoloigical model of Buddhism is Empricism and this really cannot be overlooked, in my view.
metta,
~v
thank you for the post.
i would generally agree with your posts.
it is often the case that beings which are approaching the Buddha Dharma from another paradigm seek to use the same methods of investigation which they have used to arrive at their current view. in many cases, this is simply not how things are done within the context of Buddhist praxis.
that said, there is a wide diversity of methods available for a being to use to gain a valid cognition of the Dharma so it can be a bit difficult to pin down.
overall there seems to be a desire to apply modern historical document analysis to the Suttas to determine when they were written and by whom etc. the essential issue with this approach is that it is mistaking the words of the menu for the food, so to speak.
as you correctly note, we do not worship Buddhas nor are their words revered in any specific sense, as a consequence of this, it is the ideas which are being communicated where the thrust of the teachings is felt.
in a very real sense the epistemoloigical model of Buddhism is Empricism and this really cannot be overlooked, in my view.
metta,
~v