Do You Think The Buddha Ever Really Existed?

That is the question. But the question alone shows that there IS a non-changingness.

The backdrop IS you.

 

But you need to say things more like Catholicism rather than Christianity. Christian Mysticism is more of a "hands-on" path as well.

 

Perhaps you didn't read the link?

It brings up the premise of weather buddha was fact or fiction, and answers that it was fact.

 

Was posting the link to show that it is a debate among scholars. Some people conclude it's fact, and others conclude that it is inconclusive.

 

There was no debate though, it very simply answered the question. Yes Siddhartha was real, and here is his childhood, family lineage, birth, death, and teachings.

 

Read the very opening sentence. I posted it to show that it is indeed a debate afterall, which is what you asked for a link to.

 

And if he did exist, that presents even more of an issue. Did he truly have an Awakening and was he Enlightened? The existence of Buddhism completely stems from this. Doesn't extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as many have said on this forum? Read his story here. Is some of this true but not all of it, is all of it true, or is none of it true? http://www.biography.com/people/buddha-9230587

 

I'm starting to feel like this is just a troll thread. sorry for bothering

 

What? I'm simply showing that some people think he didn't exist, and others feel that he did. But those that did also have a whole story of his Awakening and Enlightenment under the Bodhi Tree weaved right into his history and story, as if it happened as fact (such as in the last link that i posted). Not to mention that he gets visited by a spirit Mara just prior to his Awakening. How is this any different than Jesus' story? How is Buddha any more believable?

This is important because the core teachings of Buddhism stem from Buddha's Awakening, and people are trying to act like this dilemma is any different than the Jesus story and the dilemma of his Resurrection. Aren't both dealing with Spiritual Rebirth which two major religions are completely based upon as fact but neither phenomenon can truly be proven?

 

Buddisms not even a religion

It's a philosophy, and every link you've shared doesn't say anything you're talking about. They've all documented his life from birth to death even with refrences, not claimed he was fictional

How is it different from the jesus story? How is it similar or relevant to the jesus story is my question? I thought we were talking about siddhartha

 

Buddhism IS a religion, as much as you or anyone else thinks it isn't.

http://www.biography.com/people/buddha-9230587

from the link:

Siddhartha Gautama, who would one day become known as Buddha ("enlightened one" or "the awakened")
....................

That night, Siddhartha sat under the Bodhi tree, vowing to not get up until the truths he sought came to him, and he meditated until the sun came up the next day. He remained there for several days, purifying his mind, seeing his entire life, and previous lives, in his thoughts. During this time, he had to overcome the threats of Mara, an evil demon, who challenged his right to become the Buddha. When Mara attempted to claim the enlightened state as his own, Siddhartha touched his hand to the ground and asked the Earth to bear witness to his enlightenment, which it did, banishing Mara. And soon a picture began to form in his mind of all that occurred in the universe, and Siddhartha finally saw the answer to the questions of suffering that he had been seeking for so many years. In that moment of pure enlightenment, Siddhartha Gautama became the Buddha ("he who is awake").
Armed with his new knowledge, the Buddha was initially hesitant to teach, because what he now knew could not be communicated to others in words. According to legend, it was then the king of gods, Brahma, who convinced Buddha to teach, and he got up from his spot under the Bodhi tree and set out to do just that.

This is very similar to the tales of Jesus in the sense of of Supernatural phenomena happening and the fact that people couldn't understand the words that were taught (Buddha had this thought and perhaps Christ did as well). The Buddha figured it would be pointless to teach his revelation, but decided to anyway.

Read the Do You Think Jesus Ever Really Existed thread, pages 12-14 to see why it relates to this thread


From the first link I posted, the opening sentence is that Buddha's existence is debated among historians.

 

But Buddhism DOES rely on the existence and story of Siddartha. His existence, Awakening, and Enlightenment are the source of his teachings. How is this ignored?

MeAgain, on 19 Nov 2015 - 11:13 AM, said:



It all depends on how you define religion and what you will accept as proof.

As Buddhism has no creator God and as there is little evidence for a historical Buddha actually existing, I believe Buddhism is not a religion and I further hold that it is different than Christianity in that Christianity requires Jesus to have existed, in fact still exists, as the Son of the creator God.

Everyone is free to hold their own beliefs, I really don't care.

 

I would liken from what I have read and heard about Buddhism to modern science, but in all honesty i never studied Buddhism......but what Meagain writes here about it is sort of similar to my own philosophies...at least here.....Then there is Confucianism......and from what I have heard or read about that some can be likened to philosophies, as well.....I think.....
Maybe all of the religions, as religions, began with a philosopher thinker, and that thinker gathered followers and the philosophy became a religion...

Look at Scientology....L. Ron Hubbard for pete's sakes, and one of the most crack pot religions I have ever heard of in this modern age.....Have a philosophy, even if you yourself don't believe it, gather a bunch of followers and get mega rich...no, don't do that....

 

Like Jesus, show me the proof and I'll believe. I don't think it's important if he existed or not. All that matters is if there is anything worthwhile in the words he supposedly spoke.

His teachings aren't necessitated by the idea that his existence, awakening, and enlightenment occurred, though. It's not a case of "These words can only be true if the Buddha existed" is it? If you believe every other word that comes from Buddhism, but not the junk about the Buddha personally, do you have no right to call yourself a Buddhist? I don't know what else you would call yourself to make people understand your personally ideology if that was the case.

 

I just think that it's a bit of a cop-out for only Buddhism to have this distinguishment that what is being passed along as facts regarding its founder isn't relevant but for every other religion it is in regards to the legitimacy of the religion.

The tales of the Buddha are akin to the tales of Christ, so they both fall into the category of Mythology. And both religions have to do with Spiritual Rebirth afterall.

 

idk....i tend to reject anything that requires following.....I always beleived in thinking for myself. What is wrong with looking at everything and believing in what is right for oneself, whatever that may be....?
Why must anyone believe exactly what someone else says no questions asked or else?

 

He was more enlightened and wise than anybody I've ever met, so I have to give him a lot of points for that. I don't think we have anybody alive today who thinks on his level. Not even close.

Another thread? Okay, I'll start it.

I like trying to apply its insights to my life, and I like reading about what others have done with this. Contemplating everything from an Eastern perspective is especially refreshing when you've spent a lot of time around people who think Western thought is the only kind.

Thinking for yourself is one of the few things that can still truly impress me about another person.