Ancient Origins has an interesting article listing similarities between the Buddha and Christ and the early history of their two religions.
The Christ And The Buddha: How Can You Explain the Uncanny Similarities?
The following two tabs change content below.
Neil Godfrey
Neil is the author of this post. To read more about Neil, see our About page.
Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)
- Is Everything a Question of Probability? - 2024-12-15 03:04:03 GMT+0000
- The Folly of Bayesian Probability in “Doing History” - 2024-12-13 05:51:46 GMT+0000
- Jesus Mythicism and Historical Knowledge, Part 4: Did Jesus Exist? - 2024-11-27 08:20:47 GMT+0000
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!
But did either exist?
Daniel Drewes had a good paper on the historicity of the Buddha not long ago: https://www.academia.edu/24039898/The_Idea_of_the_Historical_Buddha_Updated_2017_
I always recommend reading The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts, by Bhikkhu Sujato & Bhikkhu Brahmali, as a useful argument about the historicity of the Buddha.
What is it about these texts that you find worthy of recommendation? Is it really important to anyone — Buddhists included — if the Buddha existed as per the historical legends or not?
The book I recommend because it provides a fascinating assessment of how Pali Buddhist texts are apparently fairly accurate reflections of Iron Age India – certainly more accurate than later Mahayana texts and general Buddhist hagiographies. See, for example, the discussion of the Vajji polity in the Mahāparinibbāṇa Sutta (Sutta 16 in the Digha Nikaya), which makes it clear that the Vajjis were a republic.
The Pali Buddhist texts are excellent in that they teach the origin of suffering, the way to end suffering, and the way to minimize suffering. At that level, it is certainly not important whether the Buddha Shakyamuni existed – I am aware of several Radical Buddhists who deny that he existed and yet regard the Buddhist teachings as very worthy and good, the product of a collection of samanas that was attributed to one person. This is admittedly a minority view among Buddhists, at least partially because the Standard Narrative of the Buddha Shakyamuni provides a powerful incentive for Buddhists to have faith in the Buddhist teachings in a way that these same teachings attributed to a collective would not. If the suttas deceive about the origin of the teachings, then people might wonder where the deception ends. And if no one person in one lifetime uncovered the teachings attributed to Shakyamuni Buddha, then following them becomes more intimidating for Buddhists.
There are parallels here with the Need by almost all Christian scholars to believe in the historical reliability of the life of Jesus, but for them, the drive must be stronger because whereas the Buddha Shakyamuni allegedly gave many wise teachings that may be profitably considered when divorced from their context, the life of Jesus is much more defined by his deeds (suffering, crucifixion, and death).
Coincidentally Hermann Detering has made available a paper in which he begins an examination of the evidence for Basilides that includes, if I understand correctly, reported links with Buddhism: https://www.academia.edu/33823226/Spuren_indischer_Philosophie_bei_Basilides_1._Teil_Basilides_referiert_S%C4%81%E1%B9%83khya_1
http://www.ashidakim.com/zenkoans/
“The Buddha-Christ parallels” Which one was ‘the muhammad’ an epithet meaning ‘the one to be praised’ or ‘the praised one’?
A few pages of Buddhist elements are contained here alongside ones from the competing Christologies of the period: https://storage.googleapis.com/wzukusers/user-27418862/documents/58d293f6c44d6yQ0yqp1/20%20Early%20Islam%20An%20Alternative%20Scenario%20of%20its%20Emergence%20-%20Korr%20Markus1.pdf