|
Donation/Premium |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
woodsmoke
Colonel
Premium Member
Joined: Jul 26, 2004
Posts: 1995
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:44 pm Post subject: Buddha: what "extra canonical" evidence for existe |
|
|
I was reading the now locked thread about the "evidence" for Goliath and there was an intriguing sentence; which has been oft used by the "Christ" deniers.
One of their contentions is: There is no "extra Biblical" "proof" for the existence of Christ.
In light of the above....I would offer this question:
What "extra-"canonical"" "proof" is there of the existence of the Sidharta Gautama (Buddha)?
dunno....
just a thought.........
It rather leaped forth to my mind as I was sitting beneath the Bodhi tree eating a morsel of bread and some curds when an apple fell on my head. 
woodsmoke
_________________
If possible, I know things cost...but if possible, support your local indie internet radio station, I support http://somafm.com/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Lightscribe
Lieutenant
Joined: Nov 03, 2007
Posts: 207
Location: South_Africa
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Textual or archeological proof of the existence of any "holy" person means nothing.
It still does not prove the existence of a "God".
_________________
"The greatest thing you could ever learn, is just to love...and be loved in return."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DoctorX
Warnings : 1
Captain
Joined: Oct 16, 2007
Posts: 412
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Even" with the 'use' of "'quotation' marks" the attempted fallacy remains "certain."
Nevertheless, stories of a founding figure rather do make it into a collection of stories and "teachings" of a founding figure. For:
"All you need for a founding figure is a name and a place."
In the rain.
--J.D.
_________________
Administrations that support one view over another because it is more comfortable for them to do so impede progress.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
woodsmoke
Colonel
Premium Member
Joined: Jul 26, 2004
Posts: 1995
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lightscribe,
I think, from your post, that you missed the "point"...I was not looking for proof of the existence of a "God", I was asking whether there is extra-"canonical" proof of the existence of the man...
And,
DocX
Ya gotta remember that I'm oldern' dirt ....would you please restate "Nevertheless...figure"..?
woodsmoke
_________________
If possible, I know things cost...but if possible, support your local indie internet radio station, I support http://somafm.com/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DoctorX
Warnings : 1
Captain
Joined: Oct 16, 2007
Posts: 412
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
All you need to start a movement based on a founding figure is have a name and a location.
Subsequent followers will provide all of the details. This, effectively, is what happened to Junior. In fact, there is fantastic documentation of this process: fans of Vespasian claimed he could raise the dead and documented--to my memory--something like four cases. I am unaware of Vespasian making these claims himself, but as his PR men told him as he ran for Emperor, never deny positive stories.
Junior lived centuries after Siddartha. Literary was greater, and you had an empire that enjoyed documentation. Indeed, one of the starker errors of the Synoptics and Jn is their characterization of Pilate . . . who was so extreme even the Romans started to get embarrassed! He was recalled for it.
The problem, then, is no independent documentation exists for Junior. Certainly no contemporary documentation exists--and the authors of the Synoptics and Jn were not contemporaries. Mk even gets the geography wrong and the rest follow his lead.
However, as I will take extreme mythicists to task--those who feel no Historical Junior existed--there is a good bit of canonical evidence for his existence:
1. Paul visits his brother.
2. Paul dislikes his brother and his group.
Now why Paul would want to elevate a rival to that status has not been explained. Paul makes a point of admitting he never knew the Historical Junior and really does not care about the details--he received his message directly! Why would he acknowledge his brother when arguing with his group? It is quite the fantastic conspiracy theory.
Extreme Mythicists--not in the scholarly circles that I am aware of, but on webpages with the polemical bent of an "answers in Genesis" or "TimeCube!"--brush over this. Some have claimed "the brother of the lord" is a "general" greeting.
Really?
Paul never refers to any one else with that title--which includes the definite article for emphasis--including those he agrees with.
Neat!
Problem is that does not tell us anything about what the Historical Junior said or did. If anything, one could argue his brother had a better grasp than, say, a Paul or later authors who diverge widely in their theology. Unfortunately, what James thought/taught is lost: we have only Paul's polemic, and Lk's Acts is late apology. Scholars can make arguments that it is "reasonable to conclude this and that" but one will not have the certitude unless someone digs up something in the future.
With Siddartha, you move far back in time. To be honest, I am hardly the expert on the Historical Siddartha, but I will confess to being very skeptical. I am unaware of any independent documentation or records of his existence.
--J.D.
_________________
Administrations that support one view over another because it is more comfortable for them to do so impede progress.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alanstancliff
Captain
Premium Member
Joined: May 02, 2006
Posts: 675
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 7:02 am Post subject: Re: Buddha: what "extra canonical" evidence for ex |
|
|
| woodsmoke wrote: | I was reading the now locked thread about the "evidence" for Goliath and there was an intriguing sentence; which has been oft used by the "Christ" deniers.
One of their contentions is: There is no "extra Biblical" "proof" for the existence of Christ.
In light of the above....I would offer this question:
What "extra-"canonical"" "proof" is there of the existence of the Sidharta Gautama (Buddha)?
dunno....
just a thought.........
It rather leaped forth to my mind as I was sitting beneath the Bodhi tree eating a morsel of bread and some curds when an apple fell on my head.
woodsmoke |
I don't think there is any extra-canonical proof Buddha existed. It seems to me that the only founders of great religions who can be shown to have been actual people are Mohammed, the Bab, Bahaulla, and most of the 12 Gurus who founded the Sikh religion. These figures all came after our modern notion of what history should be became widely accepted
But it is also important to remember that our idea of history was not very current during the early Christian era, the foundation of Judaism, Buddhism, etc. In those days, an accurate account of what happened was of secondary importance. Of greater importance was the moral and religious lessons to be passed on. Herodotus seems to have been the first important historian in the modern sense of attempting to recount actual events and derive a coherent interpretation of them.
Certainly, when one looks at the accounts of the miracles surrounding Buddha, Jesus, Moses, and even those who we are pretty sure are historical figures, they do seem fantastic to the non believer.
_________________
Regards,
Alan
My Web Site, Blog, Music, Art
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alanstancliff
Captain
Premium Member
Joined: May 02, 2006
Posts: 675
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
By the way, Woodsmoke, I'm not sure you received it, but I attempted to send you a PM on a topic unrelated to this thread. I ask the forum administrator and forum participants' pardon for posting this here.
_________________
Regards,
Alan
My Web Site, Blog, Music, Art
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lightscribe
Lieutenant
Joined: Nov 03, 2007
Posts: 207
Location: South_Africa
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodsmoke wrote:
| Quote: | | I think, from your post, that you missed the "point"...I was not looking for proof of the existence of a "God", I was asking whether there is extra-"canonical" proof of the existence of the man... |
I doubt it. But then, who knows...
| Quote: | | Who was this Prince Siddhartha? Better known as Buddha, he was born on April 8, in the year 566, 563, or 560 B.C. to King Suddhodana and Queen Maya (also known as Mahamaya or Mayadevi) of Sakya (or Sakhya or Shakya) in present day Nepal. Both of his parents came from the Gautama (or Gotama) clan of the royal warrior caste. Maya died one week after Siddhartha was born, and he was raised by her sister, Mahaprajapati. http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/bios/b3buddha.htm |
Perhaps an in-depth search on the web may help..."Google" him... 
_________________
"The greatest thing you could ever learn, is just to love...and be loved in return."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
woodsmoke
Colonel
Premium Member
Joined: Jul 26, 2004
Posts: 1995
Location: USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lightscribe
Lieutenant
Joined: Nov 03, 2007
Posts: 207
Location: South_Africa
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 12:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
I figured you didn't really expect an answer, but as you saw, we were all ultra polite and decided to answer anyway! 
I know quite a bit about scientology, having checked out L.Ron Hubbard's life. He expained to the FBI, when they investigated him, that everything he knows comes from the Vedas (Hindu Vedic scriptures, that is a mix of Aryan/ancient Iranian knowledge/beliefs and the ancient animist knowledge/beliefs of North Western India).
He also investigated all the ancient philosophers and religions.
Then, as we all know, he mixed the knowledge from the various religions/philosophies, with a good dose of the science fiction he is famous for and the suckers flocked to him...
The FSM seems like a tasty religion! I'm still looking for the lasagne god! 
_________________
"The greatest thing you could ever learn, is just to love...and be loved in return."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DoctorX
Warnings : 1
Captain
Joined: Oct 16, 2007
Posts: 412
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 1:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
I do not think L. Ron would know the actual history of religions if they crawled up his ass and laid eggs. All he knew was starting one gathered him both cash and ass.
"It's good to be the king."
Really want some "fun?" Search for "SeaOrg."
--J.D.
_________________
Administrations that support one view over another because it is more comfortable for them to do so impede progress.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DoctorX
Warnings : 1
Captain
Joined: Oct 16, 2007
Posts: 412
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Incidentally, the history of Mohammed is largely mythic, but since Islamic studies are located somewhere in Madrid, 1508, you have to really look to see good work!
Islam had been "smart" to suppress variant readings of the Qu'ran early. Thus, scholars and adherents could point to a definitive "interpretation"--since oral is superior to manuscript is superior to printing is et cetera. They could point and laugh a the "peoples of the book" for their variants, contradictions, and uncertainties.
In the early seventies, archaeologists discovered a "morgue" of old Qu'rans. They turned out to be older than previously known extant witnesses.
And . . .
. . .
. . .
. . . wait for it . . .
. . . they showed variant readings!
Scholars have been quietly researching this ever since, but the general history of Mohammed--as with practically every founding figure--is mythic.
[img]http://www.castlecops.com/attachments/safe_128.jpg[img]
--J.D.
_________________
Administrations that support one view over another because it is more comfortable for them to do so impede progress.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alanstancliff
Captain
Premium Member
Joined: May 02, 2006
Posts: 675
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DoctorX wrote: | In the early seventies, archaeologists discovered a "morgue" of old Qu'rans. They turned out to be older than previously known extant witnesses.
And ****SNIP******they showed variant readings!
Scholars have been quietly researching this ever since, but the general history of Mohammed--as with practically every founding figure--is mythic.
|
Hi DoctorX,
Back in 1999, The Atlantic Monthly had a very extensive article about this collection of ancient Korans. You can read a summary of that article here and even download the entire article if you are a subscriber. I found the article fascinating, and I have a PDF of it. Send me a PM if you would like me to email it to you.
I don't remember all the details exactly but this is the explanation given by many Muslim scholars.
Muhammed was unable to read or write. One evening, while he was meditating, he heard an angel commanding him to "recite." This was the beginning of the Koran. It is claimed that God did not reveal all of the Koran to Mohammed at once but over the course of years. So Muhammed would dictate a part of it, and his followers would memorize what he recited. Sometimes some of them wrote fragments on things like palm leaves and the shoulder bones of slaughtered cattle. At one point, Uthman, one of the caliphs, ordered all the fragments extant brought to him. He also ordered all the reciters to come to help put together an authoritative written Koran. It is good to remember that many preliterate peoples have a tradition of memorizing an oral history and passing it down word-for-word. The old Norse legends and Anglo-Saxon epics were of this order, as were the Mosaic books of the old Testament. The same can be said of the storytellers of various African peoples and even the Homeric epics. So the tradition of Koranic reciters is not as unusual as it might seem to us in the 21st century west.
For those of us who are secular, we might suspect that a certain amount of corruption took place. A Muslim might argue that the trove of Korans found were inauthentic because they were not Uthman's collation. Many Muslims might argue that God protected the Koran from error and therefore we should accept Uthman's version as the perfect one. Uthman ordered the defective ones interred. This might account for the archeological find you refer to. I have been told that the koranic verses in the beautiful mosque at the Dome of the Rock are somewhat divergent from those found in the Koran itself, meaning the Uthman Koran, but I can't verify that as I do not read Arabic and am not an expert in Islam.
Muslims also feel translations cannot do justice to the ancient Arabic because those were God's literal words. I knew a Muslim who theorized that ancient Arabic was God's language and was therefore the original language of Adam and Eve, the original human language from which all other languages evolved. Another told me than Arabic was much more subtle and expressive than English because it had millions of words whereas, he said English only had a couple of hundred thousand words. I declined to debate these points, as I was a guest in his place of business and eating dinner there, and I did not wish to be ungracious.
_________________
Regards,
Alan
My Web Site, Blog, Music, Art
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DoctorX
Warnings : 1
Captain
Joined: Oct 16, 2007
Posts: 412
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| alanstancliff wrote: | | Back in 1999, The Atlantic Monthly had a very extensive article about this collection of ancient Korans. |
That is the one!
| Quote: | | You can read a summary of that article here and even download the entire article if you are a subscriber. I found the article fascinating, and I have a PDF of it. Send me a PM if you would like me to email it to you. |
I already have it!!! There are other online resources for it.
I don't remember all the details exactly but this is the explanation given by many Muslim scholars.
| Quote: | | . . . The old Norse legends and Anglo-Saxon epics were of this order, as were the Mosaic books of the old Testament. |
Eeeeeeeeeeh . . . no. They HB texts lack the orality and contain a lot of the literary working that demonstrate they were composed. There may have been oral stories, but the as the Sumerian/Babylonian collections--and the Urgaritic collections--show, they were based on written texts.
| Quote: | | A Muslim might argue that the trove of Korans found were inauthentic because they were not Uthman's collation. |
That is the rise of canon. "My books GOOD! Your books the suck!!" In a way, Deuteronomy and the history that supports it were intended to replace or at least compete with the other texts that ended up in eventually in the Pentatech.
| Quote: | | I have been told that the koranic verses in the beautiful mosque at the Dome of the Rock are somewhat divergent from those found in the Koran itself, meaning the Uthman Koran, but I can't verify that as I do not read Arabic and am not an expert in Islam. |
That might be, but it is not my area of expertise.
| Quote: | | Muslims also feel translations cannot do justice to the ancient Arabic because those were God's literal words. |
Heh! The Muslims I know will tell you it makes no sense in Arabic either! Seriously! Of course, if you start with the belief "it is perfect" you will apologize for it, as some have HERE for their texts. It is a human thing.
| Quote: | | I declined to debate these points, . . . |
"Can't help fools." in a way. They would not listen. Just like trying to explain to a JW they horribly misunderstood Acts. They will not see it.
Now, "Ayotollah" is the "voice/words of Allah." Thus, Rusdie titled his book as a direct attack on Khomenei. Indeed, Khomenei is portrayed in the book. Of course, the Old Bastard could not say he was pissed because the book exposed him as a murdering apostate.
--J.D.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lightscribe
Lieutenant
Joined: Nov 03, 2007
Posts: 207
Location: South_Africa
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DoctorX wrote:
| Quote: | | Really want some "fun?" Search for "SeaOrg." |
I know quite a bit about SeaOrg from a pile Scientology mags that a friend, that had left them, when he realised how whacked they are, gave me to show their MO.
The Wikipedia info on them did have some extra stuff (anti Scientology)I wasn't aware of, since the mags were obviously just propaganda.
From Wikipedia's SeaOrg page there was a link to Scientology's "Spaceopera" belief, which I just had to share!
| Quote: | It describes past life episodes as recounted by 43 Scientologists undergoing Scientology auditing during a conference in London in 1958. The participants in the conference reported having lived past lives including the following:
A past life as a robot working in a factory in space, which had gold animals hanging around it which "appeared solid but periodically imploded or exploded". It ground up discs to make small animals, which were then "inflated after blowing up through a totem and a cat devil" before being sent to other planets. A planet blew up, and the robot was blamed. He was drugged and forced to work the grinder.
A past life "55 quintillion years ago" in which the being had to do outside repairs on a space ship. He suffered radiation burns and fell off, plunging into an ocean on the planet below. A manta ray killed him and he in turn inhabited the manta ray.
A past life as a trouble-making free being on Mars "469,476,600 years ago". He tried to inhabit a "doll body", but he was captured and beaten up. The being was zapped with a ray gun by a Martian bishop in front of a congregation chanting "God is Love", before being run over by a large car and a steamroller. He was then frozen in an ice cube and dropped on Planet ZX 432, where he took another robot body and zapped and killed another robot. He took off in a flying saucer, and died when it exploded.
A past life in which a being went to a planet where the forces of good were fighting evil black magic forces. After 74,000 years of battle, implants and hallucinations, he lost the fight, and joined the black magic side. He went to another planet on a space ship, where he was "deceived into a love affair with a robot decked out as a beautiful red-haired girl."
Being transformed into an intergalactic walrus which perished after falling out of a flying saucer.
Being "a very happy being who ... strayed to the planet Nostra" 23,064,000,000 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_opera_in_Scientology_scripture |
 "Beam me up Scotty. There's no intelligent life down here!" 
_________________
"The greatest thing you could ever learn, is just to love...and be loved in return."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group
|
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
