Did the Buddha Exist?

Did the Buddha really exist? It's a question that concerns some of us today, given the paucity of hard evidence from the early period of the Buddha's lifetime. We'll look at some of the issues involved in reconstructing that early history and finish up by considering whether and to what extent worries about the Buddha's real existence should impact our practice.
🧡 If you get benefit out of these videos, please consider joining us on Patreon at: / dougsseculardharma
🧡 You can also make donations through: paypal.me/dougsdharma
✅ Books:
Rupert Gethin, Foundations of Buddhism amzn.to/2PIONpi
Richard Gombrich, What the Buddha Thought amzn.to/2DmcMVD
Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? amzn.to/2Rz4Qn2
✅ Papers:
Sujato and Brahmali, Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts ocbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2...
Richard Gombrich, Recovering the Buddha's Message www.ahandfulofleaves.org/docum...
Jayarava Attwood, Siddhārtha Gautama: What's in a Name? www.academia.edu/4866512/Sidd...
❤️ Thanks to Patrons:
Matthew Smith
Kathy Voldstad
Haca Ce
slidnbob
Ashoka pillar image courtesy of Dhamijalok at Wikimedia.
#dougsdharma #dougsseculardharma #buddhism #secularbuddhism
-----------------------------
Please visit the Secular Buddhist Association webpage!
secularbuddhism.org/
Disclaimer: any Amazon links are affiliate links where I will earn a very small commission on purchases you make, at no additional cost to you. This goes a tiny way towards defraying the costs of making these videos. Thank you!

[@afaegfsgsdef]

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?

[@DougsDharma]

Yes, I think that's a skillful way to approach the problem. Thanks Molch.

[@neil6477]

@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.

[@afaegfsgsdef]

@Goldie O Buddha told people not to take his word for it, but to try it and see the results for yourself

[@jessesoto6150]

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

[@manderson7341]

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/

[@f00lishroy]

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!

[@DougsDharma]

You're very welcome Loren, thanks for watching and for the comment! 🙏

[@christrevelation4043]

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?

[@DRUNKENSYLEMASTER619]

@@christrevelation4043 and before him in non abrahimic societies ?

[@neil6477]

@@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.

[@manderson7341]

Lord Buddha, Siddartha, spoke on this many times. Do not worship me. Do not worship rituals. I am not the only Enlightened One , etc

[@happierabroad]

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.

[@DougsDharma]

Well yes, that's one way to put it! 😄

[@siddave549]

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.

[@DougsDharma]

Yes I think the historical material we have makes that pretty clear Sid, thanks.

[@siddave549]

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 .

[@nak605]

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

[@igrim4777]

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.

[@satanramirezramos8367]

Yes my country has alot of evidence to bc Buddha visited at the beginning. We have footprints,ancient ruins and literature

[@TheNeighborhoodZenPriest]

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.

[@DougsDharma]

Indeed so Leonhard's Journey. Thanks!

[@Thissapunyo]

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.

[@DougsDharma]

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: kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5KYlKyHd6esY8k

[@dusanbosnjakovic6588]

​@@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.

[@DougsDharma]

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.

[@studentofspacetime]

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.

[@DougsDharma]

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.

[@uluwitiya1979]

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.

[@DougsDharma]

Yes exactly tuluwitiya, it's a complicated history but the humanity shines through.

[@NepalShaman]

Blessing from Nepal, Land of Himalayas and Birth Place of Gautam Buddha. (Lumbini).

[@bhabireacts6015]

Buddha was born in india (sarughata) modern nepal

[@afanasibushmanov7463]

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."

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks Afanasi, yes at the end of the day it's the wise philosophy and the practice that make the difference. 🙂

[@djmuscovy7525]

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.

[@afanasibushmanov7463]

@@djmuscovy7525 thank you

[@xiaomaozen]

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! 😊

[@DougsDharma]

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.

[@triciahutchins5407]

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

[@DougsDharma]

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!

[@TheVikish]

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 😊😊

[@charityburns2610]

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!

[@DougsDharma]

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.

[@charityburns2610]

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.

[@DougsDharma]

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: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rZrCmaSmftpgrM0

[@truth8307]

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 🤭🤔

[@davidjohnzenocollins]

@@truth8307 Namo Amituofo!

[@maunster3414]

Buddha first temple has been found. End of discussion, the guy was real and became enlightened.

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks for your input Maunster.

[@sabineb.5616]

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.

[@manderson7341]

@@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]

@@sabineb.5616 you have to understand how painstaking it is to learn the Pali Cannon. This process hasn’t changed since 653 BCE

[@sabineb.5616]

@@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.

[@pumarealtor]

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.

[@DougsDharma]

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. 🙂

[@localnugget]

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.

[@DougsDharma]

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. 🙏

[@elizabethwatson4209]

I think the following of Buddhist practice and ethics has intrinsic value. I’m a member of Triratna Order but I explore other orders, and other spiritual concepts. I’m probably agnostic, but remain open to any positive influence or knowledge. It brings me happiness and peace of mind . I’m a psychologist and bring metta to my work with my clients, the result is often quite wonderful. Thank you for your videos they are great.

[@DougsDharma]

Glad to hear, all the best with your practice!

[@hora-azul]

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.

[@DougsDharma]

🙏😊

[@lorenzomuratori2462]

Nice content, I like these history lessons :)

[@DougsDharma]

Glad to hear it Lorenzo, thanks!

[@nikhuge6580]

.”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..

[@DougsDharma]

That's right nik, it's a great statement of the dhamma.

[@yt-mca]

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

[@DougsDharma]

Yes, I agree that it doesn't really matter. 🙏

[@sunex6806]

Come and see lumbini , Nepal 🇳🇵 and you will know buddha exist or not . Buddham sanaram gachhami

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks Suman! Maybe someday. 🙂

[@nccl4250]

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.

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks Nc! 🙏

[@DipayanPyne94]

Hello Doug ! I have some questions. Christopher Beckwith's book 'Greek Buddha' came out in 2015. If I am not mistaken, he challenged the authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts in it. However, in the same year, a book called 'The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts' by Bhikkhu Sujato & Bhikkhu Brahmali also came out. They have made a very good case for the EBTs. The part which appealed to me the most is the fact that the EBTs point to a period before Chandragupta and Ashoka, as neither is mentioned in them. The later texts, however, do mention them and, a Mauryan and post Mauryan India is reflected in these texts. So, it seems to me that the EBTs were composed either during Buddha's own lifetime or just a little later or both. Beckwith seems to have made a big mistake. What do you think ? What do you have to say about the works of Beckwith and Sujato & Brahmali ?

[@DougsDharma]

My understanding is that Beckwith's book isn't taken very seriously by academics.

[@DipayanPyne94]

Oh ok. I guess that settles it 😂 Thanks !! 👍🏽😄

[@dfdgfdgf0000]

Doug, you are awesome. I could listen to you for hours 🙂

[@DougsDharma]

Very kind of you to say. 🙏😊

[@cxxx9756]

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.

[@DougsDharma]

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.

[@stevevest7206]

Thank you. I found this video very helpful.

[@DougsDharma]

Glad to hear it Steve, you’re very welcome!

[@stevevest7206]

@@DougsDharma I do believe it is important to not let the point of stories be lost by assuming that they must be literally true. Much of Buddhism is an attempt to describe the ineffable. There is a good example that comes to mind. You may have heard of North Sentinel Island. It is the home of a very primitive people who remain isolated from modern society. Imagine trying to describe the modern world to those people. Would we not seem like gods or demons to them? Now, take the next step and realize that to people in the future, we will seem like those inhabitants of North Sentinel Island. The world will have advanced so much that what we view as advanced, will be viewed as primitive. Basically, I find it important to realize that every person who has ever lived, did so in modern times.

[@SBCBears]

Taken together, the depth, intricacy, uniqueness and contemporaneousness of the earliest texts point to a single source.

[@SBCBears]

@Robert Williamson Thanks. Interesting.

[@DougsDharma]

I agree Crow, most likely a single source.

[@robertmartell7271]

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

[@DougsDharma]

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.

[@richardmccabe2392]

There's a lot of comments here saying it doesn't matter whether he existed or not and it's only the teachings that matter. I have a different view. Part of the reason I got into buddhism was the fact that I didn't have to accept on faith the existence of a mythical being whose words were holy and not to be refuted. The fact that the Buddha was a real dude, who spent years meditating and gathering first hand knowledge of human experience and the cause of suffering, even overcoming mistakes like his ascetic period, AND encouraging people to be skeptical and test his ideas, is what hooked me in instantly. This was a real guy who gave up his pleasures and dedicated most of his life to develop an incredibly valid and consistent philosophy on life that birthed an entire religion. The fact that the Buddha was a real guy means we can say "secular buddhism" and reject ideas like rebirth or the different realms without rejecting his core teachings since he was human! And humans can be wrong! It's a religion that isn't dogmatic!

[@DougsDharma]

Right, I think the Buddha's life story (I mean the one we can glean from a historical analysis of the early texts) is quite interesting and compelling. And human. 🙏

[@dublinphotoart]

If you don't accept rebirth and different states of being then I would say you are not Buddhist.

[@richardmccabe2392]

@@dublinphotoart In the kalama sutta, the Buddha encourages his followers not to follow his teachings on blind faith but to explore, understand and discern what leads to wholesome outcomes. The concept of rebirth, although taught by the Buddha, is secondary to his main teachings on the four noble truths. If you want ultimate freedom from suffering in *this* life, you can follow the noble eightfold path and start walking down the path of awakening. I'm going to become a monk within the next few years and will live a monastic life, learning about suffering, craving, desire, acting wholesomely and studying the Pali canon. I don't think it would be accurate to say I'm not a Buddhist just because I don't accept one belief yet accept literally everything else and live such way.

[@dublinphotoart]

@@richardmccabe2392 I think if you reject rebirth then the path, the dharma has been rendered pointless. As Dzongsar Khyentse said, by rejecting it, you are automatically accepting an 'ultimate end' which is completely arbitrary. And as Ajahn Brahmali said the Buddha taught about birth for a reason, it is recurring. I enjoyed his debate with Stephen Bachelor on this.

[@richardmccabe2392]

@@dublinphotoart whether there is an ultimate end or not, the Buddha discovered the root cause of suffering and its permanent end, and the path leading towards it. I'll be damned if I don't follow this path to live a healthy and happy life simply because I don't accept one belief on faith. Literally the rest of everything that the Buddha says can be confirmed through direct experience and psychological research. The guy was human and I cannot fault him for making one or two unjustified beliefs. This is literally what draws me to Buddhism unlike other religions.

[@manderson7341]

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

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks for your input Michael.

[@prashant1760]

What are your views about stupa found at indus valley.... Does it pointing out that there are 6 previous buddhas. To which it dedicated

[@pragmatic]

I think it shows us how Buddhism spread as a religion, it followed the ancient silk road trade route!

[@ItsSater]

Im budhist and if he existed him gonna be SO HAPPY!!!

[@DougsDharma]

🙏😊

[@saradamin6749]

This is a fascinating topic and I love to read these comments. Buddhism is still making sense whatever about its founder. However there are many internal and external materials suggest the existence of the historical Buddha as a human. This made most historians found no doubt about his historocity. As Doug well said, Buddhists put more time into apply his teachings and live his life than just to defend on his existence.

[@saradamin6749]

Buddhist texts should be regarded as the records of wisdom and experience by previous generations that inspire us to find the truth by ourselves. Not as an infallible holy book which is perfect in all aspects and without any mistake in all its details. Even Buddha supports us for textual examination and wisely investigation to put in into practice.... This is not the matter of believing. With this realistic approach, Buddhism stands. Even without supernatural things (which is not interested or important in Buddhism), Buddhism still stands with great value.

[@saradamin6749]

I support one to be skeptical for finding the fact in details. But one should have done the research and try to understand from comparing the various evidences and materials. But be careful from just to be "fundamentalist skeptical" which makes no use of being skeptic at all. The book from Bhante Sujato is very amazing and well explained.

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks for your comments Sarada! 🙏

[@luizr.5599]

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.

[@themetamancer7402]

In the three jewels, is taking refuge in the Buddha, taking refuge in the idea of a perfectly enlightened being, or the end result of the 8fold path, or is it in the historical figure 'the Buddha'?

[@DougsDharma]

There isn't necessarily a right answer to this question. I discuss a little of it in this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rZqVpJdsatFsa9E

[@adammorait7429]

Excellent video !

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks, Adam!

[@markusmars]

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 😉

[@DougsDharma]

Sure, thanks for your thoughts, Markus.

[@jesusbermudez6775]

Everybody is grumpy. How can we know what Buddha was like. One thing for sure he had wet dreams.

[@saradamin6749]

This is the topic I had waiting for.

[@DougsDharma]

Good, glad to hear Sarada! 🙂

[@drkok]

Apple still falls when ripen subjected to1 G even if Newton was not there. It still

[@DougsDharma]

True dr kok! 🙂

[@ericb7799]

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?

[@DougsDharma]

It's the Pāli version, rather than the Sanskrit.

[@AntarblueGarneau]

Practice will benefit even if the practice has been changed over the centuries. That is my experience. Whether or not Gautam Buddha was an historical figure only matters to those who want to maintain a religion based on a personality or those who would like to debunk it. If Gautam Buddha actually existed historically my guess is that he was a practical man and would say "Go on practicing, go on practicing, go on...

[@DougsDharma]

Yes, thanks!

[@Thissapunyo]

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?

[@DougsDharma]

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: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jGWbameLnJ2MacU

[@Thissapunyo]

@@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?

[@DougsDharma]

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: kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6Dbkpqjqbh7f5I

[@51lanka]

What is important is what Buddha Really taught and not his family tree or where he was born Sri Lanka, India, Nepal or Thailand.., it took me 60 years to learn the real teachings of The Buddha. The reason is that despite the existence of Buddhism, the real teachings or Buddha Dhamma has been suppressed so far. This is the reason why in the last thousand years, no one was able to attain “Arhathship”, the highest attainable level of purification a follower can attain. There is no question that many good, dedicated and devoted followers of Buddhism had born and died trying to achieve it during the thousand year period that passed. Why were all of them unsuccessful? The reason is that although the Buddhist Religion was available to follow with rituals, the key parts of Buddha’s teachings were misinterpreted. What is real Teachings of Buddha: What is the correct path to follow? It is so easy that you do not have to leave your family, work and everything in life behind and go to the forest to look for trees to sit under in order to meditate on your breathing. You can practice anytime, anywhere, in any posture, while working, relaxing, travelling, shopping, watching TV or going to sleep in bed. The only requirement is that you should be watchful about the thoughts that are coming to your mind. The Method: What is the method to practice? ... Read more here written for the benefit of Sinhala Buddhist children born in other countries jyotisha.00it.com/

[@uliuli8997]

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.

[@DougsDharma]

That's right, practice along the path is what's important. Thanks!

[@francoislancon798]

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.

[@toddviv]

I think it's important, of course, it provides validity to the teachings. Perhaps we will find out in the future.

[@DougsDharma]

Indeed so toddviv.

[@scottkraft1062]

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 KZbin

[@slohmann1572]

I don’t know who built my house, but it provides me shelter anyway. That’s the same for the Dharma.

[@odin4006]

A great explanation

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks Odin, glad you found it useful.

[@mindfulskills]

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.

[@DougsDharma]

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.

[@mindfulskills]

@@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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/i6G5daede8iilZo

[@bigdudut9353]

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

[@allaboutrandoms]

It doesn't matter whether Lord Buddha existed or not. Coz he has told the one who follows and sees dhamma( teaching of his,) will see me. He never forced anyone to follow his teachings, just mentioned only come and see. If you believe then follow. So what we should do is rather than worrying about his existence we should follow his teachings and see whether he has told the truth about attaining Nirwana.

[@DougsDharma]

That's right Amila, thanks!

[@sarahmarie1898]

Whether or not Buddha or Jesus existed, the message (teachings) from both are very wholesome. That - one can't discount and good enough for me.

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks for your comment Sarah!

[@jewbanqora5159]

What the heck!!! Jesus sanctions Slavery Exodus 21- completely flat out BS!!!

[@EkantBhairab]

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.

[@DougsDharma]

That's right, Razen. Thanks.

[@hiyacynthia]

Great video. Thank you. To me it does not matter if there was an actual Buddha, either way is fine. The value is in the teachings. But, there are some for whom a real existing Buddha is of paramount importance, and yes, it is a question of faith. I might even get threats if I start questioning if Buddha really existed. Have you read Bernard Faures book one thousand and one lives of the Buddha?

[@kelvinleung6746]

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.

[@DougsDharma]

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.

[@kelvinleung6746]

@@DougsDharma Good to know! Thanks for sharing.

[@gunterappoldt3037]

@@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...

[@christopherdaffron8115]

Well Buddhists have to decide which is more important, The man or the message. Buddhists who focus on the message should not be too concerned about whether the man himself actually existed or not. Sun Tzu may or may not have actually existed, but that shouldn't be a criterion to determine whether his military strategies are valid or not.

[@DougsDharma]

Yes, good points Christopher.

[@jesusbermudez6775]

Thank you for this video. Being brought up as a Christian I question greatly the existence of Jesus. I am certain that Jesus was in now way God, nor resurrected and all of that. However, I had never thought that there are similar questions of the existence of Buddha. It's good that there are these questions about Buddha.

[@DougsDharma]

Yes similar kinds of arguments.

[@Bongwater33]

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.

[@DougsDharma]

That's right, it doesn't really matter to our practice.

[@gabrielchan4359]

enjoy your info

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks for watching!

[@timnitz2654]

A Zen priest said to myself and fellow students once, "The only thing you have to take on faith in Buddhism is that enlightenment is possible." So, if the Buddha didn't exist then he didn't achieve enlightenment, and that reduces the likelihood that enlightenment is possible. If his persona was manufactured, then who did achieve enlightenment? Anyone? Otherwise personally I don't think it matters for the practice.

[@DougsDharma]

Right, though even if we set aside complete enlightenment as a possibly unachievable ideal, we can still understand and undertake the path as one which gets us closer to that ideal state.

[@Sandakathmini01]

Some one follows the doctrines of the Dhamma, he shows the Buddha. ...... 🌹

[@DougsDharma]

🙏😊

[@miiigoreng]

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

[@DougsDharma]

🙏😊

[@akashrules99]

Also buddhas text and stories made for practice of Janhas, now closest to is vipassana, where they use the mahasathi pathan suta given by buddhist to progress in better understanding of self at physical and quantum level.

[@DougsDharma]

Usually in modern Vipassana practice, jhāna is set to the side. I have heard that it is making something of a comeback now. We will see. 🙂

[@fuglsnef]

I find the history fascinating but completely orthogonal to my practice. In the same way learning about music theory doesn't take anything from the experience of enjoying a good piece of music.

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks fuglsnef, yes history is mostly orthogonal to practice. But it can be interesting just to see how the thinking developed, just as you say with music.

[@eddygan325]

The one who see the Dhamma, see the Buddha

[@DougsDharma]

Ha! Yes, that's a creative solution to the problem!

[@prashant1760]

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

[@rahult1518]

Buddha was often asked mythically ' is their a god ' and he would always turn it around ' what do u think ' . I think this question is of the same nature. The video in essence elaborates the same, ' only if it matters to u ' . Aum

[@kenwallach5718]

Bud told his followers not to take his word for anything but to see if it made sense to themselves. He was not essential to the process because ,see, he was about to die like everything else that exists.

[@DougsDharma]

That's right Ken, if the dharma makes sense to you then you really don't need the Buddha to have existed. Just follow the dharma anyway.

[@dr.s.p.]

Just a little surprised there was no mention of merit about the Buddha’s relics about the subject matter of your clip? The arguments went on for ages about how the relics should be distributed and where they supposedly ended up. The title of this clip and your content, although very interesting, widened by the moment.

[@DougsDharma]

Yes there is certainly more to be said, and the article I reference in the show notes by Bhante Brahmali and Bhante Sujato mentions some as well. My only concern is that over the millennia relics have been faked so often that we need testing even to be sure of their time period. I’m not sure any have been carbon dated, though some are indeed likely dated to that time period by other means.

[@dr.s.p.]

Your answer is much appreciated. It’s sad, but so true about faked relics in many religions, faked art, books, scrolls and shrouds to mention a few and the fakes have been around for centuries and now the fakes just get better as time goes on and the reluctance of religious leaders to allow testing, because fakes are bad for business. It would however, be nice to think that at least some of the relics out there are genuine Buddha relics though.

[@wiser.kinder.calmer.6530]

nice high quality audio and video! I think it's a question not to get to caught up in... is the Buddha real, is Jesus real, is Laozi real? History happened a long time ago, one thing we can know is the wisdom is real. that's all that really matters

[@DougsDharma]

That's right, Matt. What's most important is the teaching and practice itself.

[@Albetroz1415]

Look at modern day India gurus & preachers are still prominent, 500 years from now nobody will be questioning SADHGURUS existence because we have videography that doesn't mean gurus of the past did not exist, it's like a tradition in the Indic society to have a guru or a pathfinder with a huge following, it's a pattern too common throughout Indian history to be false. Siddhartha, Mahavira founder of Jainism, Gurus who founded Sikhism, Basavanna who founded Lingayatism all existed.

[@DougsDharma]

Yes, probably so!

[@truth8307]

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 😇

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks for your thoughts on this Stanley. 🙏

[@squamish4244]

What I question is the authenticity of the Pali Canon, what is accurate and what isn't. If it was passed down by oral tradition for 200 years, and then on fragile leaves for another few hundred years, I have some doubts. As you said, like in early Christianity, there is a lot of obvious mythology. There are later interpolations. So I can accept that most of it is accurate, and some of it isn't.

[@DougsDharma]

Right, this is a matter of detailed scholarship.

[@dulangachamika9171]

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)

[@DougsDharma]

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. 🙏

[@Arekion]

El budsmo secular tiene alguna vinculacion con alguna orden monastica?

[@DougsDharma]

No precisamente. Había algunos monjes con tendencias laicas/seculares, pero no muchos.

[@Arekion]

@@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.

[@soundhealingbygene]

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.

[@babeksaber2702]

Thank you. It seems to me that one of the things that look unrealistic about the Buddhist scripture, is their simplistic and trivial takes on the vedic literature. There is no doubt in my mind that if indeed there was a Shakya Muni, and that he was an arahat (a Jain term). Then his understanding and his points not only be much deeper, but also in line with the vedic scripture. Since, they are also written by people in the state of Kayvalia/enlightened. There seems to be little difference between the two, once you remove the froth from Buddhism/Jain. Maybe there was a shakya muni, whom came head to head with some dogmatic/religious Brahmins, and perhaps he came from a Jain background, or he had great affinity towards them. But then again, he had traveled, met many and as such we cannot discount the simplistic, almost erroneous arguments that he makes. I might also slightly disagree with your take on the subject, that probably it wouldn't matter much if indeed he is the figment of some peoples (Jain monastic?) imagination. The very spiritual practice that Buddhists follow, is in the aim of liberation, for most, and for many. So you can see how problematic it might be if you are following practice and procedures that actually, might be or sound good, but in reality wont get you very far on the spiritual path to Samadhi. It seems to me, most likely Shakya Muni was a true yogi, in the sense of meditative practice, although the language used sound very much like Jain practice, and tried to eliminate the religious froth from the vedic practitioners of his time, but ended up establishing more froth, and a whole raft of religious practices.. Cheers

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks for your input, Babek. I don't think the Buddha was quite so close to Jainism, though he was influenced by it. His arguments with Mahāvīra's followers were as strong as those he had with the Brahmins of his day.

[@yongjiean9980]

You can read the research works of Bhante Sujato on Early Buddhism

[@DougsDharma]

Yes, the main one with Bhante Brahmali is linked in the show notes.

[@kidkous]

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

[@DougsDharma]

That's right K. percy, the practice is there either way. Thanks for the comment!

[@Futureone]

Can we follow his lineage from his family to present day? Somewhat?

[@DougsDharma]

Not to my knowledge Futureone. It's like asking for the lineage of Plato or Caesar.

[@kyrolantsberger2659]

I'm into genealogy and DNA. After 2500 years, it's statistically likely that most human born East of the Caucasus share biological lineage from Siddhartha.

[@nitinbhadane6172]

Please shed light on the excavation of an ancient Buddhist stupa at Piprahwa near the border of India and Nepal. The bone relics of Buddha are found there

[@DougsDharma]

Yes the discoveries at Piprahwa are interesting, though I don't know enough about the scholarship surrounding them to have any firm thoughts. The discovery of bones however doesn't prove very much.

[@lmansur1000]

For sure someone existed that brought forth these teachings. Same with Jesus. I feel it is an indulgence to play with doubt. I was born in Jerusalem, Palestine as a Quaker. I was not programmed BUT Jesus being of that land makes a lot of sense to me - Jesus' teachings made a difference in my life. Teachings do not spring in the air or from the ground.... I personally feel when people question then they need to come to terms with that... because if they start being open to the teachings, they will know. ALSO, we are not to believe in the person but in the teachings - that would be the generous gift given to us by Jesus and by Buddha, Now, the various stories may not be so very accurate. That I can understand why since it has been over time and it does not matter really. Jesus had missing years in his life and no one knows where he went or where he was during those years. To me, that gives it more authenticity because no one tried to manufacture what he did to fill in the gap. My thoughts. note: the main thing is not to attach to the person but to learn and "get" the message and apply and live it. With Jesus, there is a lot of distortions in some groups... I suspect same with Buddha. That would be the clinging.

[@DougsDharma]

Sure, we can't know the precise story.

[@chuckitaway466]

U can see that some one guy had a breakthrough just from the material.

[@DougsDharma]

Well that would be nice! 😄

[@Walter-uy4or]

I have been practicing, mostly in the Theravada tradition for over 35 years, with, in the aggregate, 2 years on retreat. I have read much of the Pali canon. What convinces me as to the historicity is the canon’s internal consistency. It is not like the Bible with many inconsistent voices. Still, it seems clear that enlightenment is not real for the simple reason that after 50ish years of serious western practice, there are almost no reliable examples of an enlightened westerner. Even with a 1% success rate, which would be a pretty pathetic path, there would be 100’s, and I would know some. Still, I find the path valuable and practice meditation daily, but would discourage anyone from making major life sacrifices on the assumption enlightenment or rebirth is real.

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks for that, Walter. I think whether or not enlightenment is real, the practice is worthwhile.

[@redefv]

Who cares? The way of life is about looking inward, becoming aware, and paying that new found awareness forward humbly.

[@DougsDharma]

🙏

[@phraalanjames6184]

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! 😂

[@DougsDharma]

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. 🙏🙂

[@JamesSmith-kt3bi]

Thanks Doug, as ever insightful and pithy dharma. By analogy, this debate is akin to the doctrine of no fixed self. Relatively I exist, fundamentally I do not and cannot, as change is what gives rise to and sustains form. A Buddha is a set of emergent conditions that give rise to an insight into the nature of reality which is impermanent. An insight that is apprehended and stabilised through ethical based meditation practices, calming the noise of the defilements which give rise to an perpetuate a fixed view of the nature of self and existence and cause unnecessary suffering. As such a Buddha is not a fundamental reality, nor can s/he be. And only the practice of their dharma for the liberation of the suffering of fixed view are important. To confuse the two is to undermine the very insight which gives rise to the epithet Buddha. May this be received kindly just as it is with it many faults. May all beings be free from the unnecessary suffering of fixed views and dwell in the peace of a non-located liberated mind.

[@DougsDharma]

Right, well since a Buddha (and indeed any arahant) is said to have no ego-directed desires and hence to create no karma, they are said to be out of Mara’s range. There are several odd features of such beings on a traditional understanding, as you note. This is more about the historical being Gotama and his existence as one who turned the wheel of the dharma.

[@JamesSmith-kt3bi]

Hi Doug, "If you meet the Buddha kill him" May all beings be free from the suffering of fixed view.

[@scottsews]

What about the Buddha's relics? the fact that he refers to his "rivals" in the earlier sutta's. If we where to refer to the mahayana texts, I would doubt all of their authenticity, for me only Theravada texts and teachings are authentic to the degree the closest to the teaching of the Buddha.

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks gingercatni. Yes, the Mahāyāna texts are mostly later; there may be some exceptions here and there but that's the general rule. As to relics, those are notoriously faked. It's said that there are enough pieces of the True Cross to have floated a fleet of ships. This isn't to say that some claimed relics don't go back to the historical Buddha -- perhaps some do. But it would need an awful lot of testing and *independent* analysis for us to have a reasonable supposition, and that is unlikely to happen. (Partly because such analysis is destructive: the machines have to vaporize the sample to detect its age, for example).

[@DougsDharma]

That's right Alex. I talked about this a bit in earlier videos about the Mahāyāna and "Authentic" Buddhism.

I think the idea of Buddha's relics to be hilarious. What could be less relevant to a religion / philosophy that teaches the transience of all things than a religious relic? As for authenticity, I follow Nagarjuna's comments, and care not whether Gautama Buddha existed or not.

[@scottsews]

@ With reference to the relic read the Paranibbana Sutta, it explains how the relics came to be. I do believe the relics of the Buddha of our age to be of importance more so because at the time if his death the relics were divided evenly, presently on a few of those divisions are in existence. Relics connect us to our teacher in the same as reading a discourse does. /\

[@scottsews]

@@alexivanov3802 I don' mean to insult anyone of their belief in the texts but it is widely accepted that texts such as the heart sutra is not authentic. Its a chinese text back translated into sanskrit and introduced to india. There are others and the buddha did say before he died he held nothing back there is no esoteric teachings but yet since his para nibbana, the mahayana school has developed esoteric teachings and sutra's attributed to him and insulted the original order with the hinayana label for following the teachings as instructed by the Buddha.

[@haikaloronsentnel138]

GREAT SPREAD OF DHARMA BUDDHA!!! L0VE FR0M IND0NES!A BUDDH!ST!!!

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks Haikal!

[@aliciamontero7061]

Even today there are people in people in Myammar that learn by heart all the Suttas, as there are muslims that learn by heart all Koran. I happen to know some Tibetan monks and they memorize a lot when they are very young and they do not understand what they are reciting, maybe then ten years later they study the text and come to understand it. It is a whole different way to to approach learning and transmission of knowledge. In the very life of Buddha there were monks devoted only to memorize Suttas and if the Buddha discovered a mistake, scolded them and corrected them.

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks Alicia, that's right there are great masters of memorization and techniques of memorization were well understood in ancient India.

[@dhammaboy1203]

If the Buddha wasn’t Gotoma then someone else or some other people still created this practice & philosophy. So you have a one step regress and you’re at the Buddha again. So it’s a purely academic question. Having read an academic papers casting doubt on Gotoma being the Buddha I didn’t find that paper particularly compelling. I do find it odd however, how many stores of Mahavira (Jainism) and Gotoma are identical.

[@drakengarddrake1816]

Please see the evidence found recently in piprava😊

[@DougsDharma]

Yes video here! kzbin.info/www/bejne/ooO7gqF_Z9p3otk 😊

[@khanalankit]

Gotama is family name. Not even family name. A group of family names belong to these few super group names. It just means born in the lineage of Gotama. Till date there are people of Gotama lineage. In most of the teaching/text, there was a person who never claimed to be anything more than ordinary human but not sure which stories are true and which are not. Most of the teachings and stories are about everyday human experiences.

[@DougsDharma]

That's right Ankit, these are very down-to-earth stories that seem to reflect a real life lived.

[@wendyshoo3476]

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.

[@DougsDharma]

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": kzbin.info/www/bejne/a2qpiXSNaKaGaKs

[@neilsims6819]

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.

[@DougsDharma]

Right, I discuss how the Buddha never denied the existence of a conventional self in this and several other videos: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rYann4Ova6Z2fZY

[@neilsims6819]

@@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).

[@DougsDharma]

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.

[@neilsims6819]

@@DougsDharma I cited an entire academic work that argues for the points I gave the summary for. Simply denying the conclusion is not convincing.

[@JohnnyCanuck32]

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.

[@DougsDharma]

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: kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6Dbkpqjqbh7f5I

[@deepakpanwar6204]

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.

[@rudolffischer3849]

Hey Doug, could you do a video about loneliness and buddhism I would really appreciate that. Ty for your teachings

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks for the suggestion, Rudolf. I'll put it on the list! 🙏

[@rudolffischer3849]

@@DougsDharma Thank you

[@FaYT02]

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.

[@DougsDharma]

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".

[@FaYT02]

@@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.

[@crisindugurung5704]

Gautam is the family name and Siddhartha is the name.

[@ballsysacken9456]

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..

[@MYTHFROMNATURE]

Cool thing , bri doug

[@DougsDharma]

🙏😊

[@mariabertram7932]

I think it is good thinking about this and also to have an opinion or an answer to this question, but the answer shouldn't discourage you in seeking a better life quality. I think there shouldn't be so many discussions about whether the buddha did existed. As far, christians established christianity and the church, God could have never existed. There must have been lots of benefits of establishing christianity and the church. Christianity itself was a good instrument for suppressing people. Achieving lots of Money, Power over money, influencing the society and all political movements. Thats difficult to say about Buddhism. The whole difference between Jesus and Buddha. Jesus was a God that never preached or taught anything in a church. Buddha was a teacher. And we can for sure tell, that if there was a pope preaching in the church, Jesus could have never existed, but if Buddhism was established, there must have been a Buddha, a first Buddha, that was teaching meditation, in the way that we now call Buddhism. Thats a 100% proof, only by reasoning, that a Buddha, the first one existed. Unless Buddhism itself would have never existed. Of course Buddhism could have been established by a group of people, who were trying to reach enlightenment, but nevertheless, it must have been more likely, that in a meditation group, and I mean after one of them, or some of them enlightened, there must have been a Leader to teach meditation. And it makes more sense that if it was a group of members, that were seeking enlightenment, the first who enlightened among them, or was just claiming that he enlightened, was the one to teach meditation. Now we can for sure say, there must have been a person, whether enlightened, or just claiming he is enlightened, who for the first time taught meditation in the way of Buddhism. But! Buddha never wrote anything about himself. And we all know that people describe a person, a situation, or an event differently. We see it in our daily life, people perceive reality and different situations differently. If you would think about a friend or a family member, describing an event that occurred to you, could you think of him describing it correctly? In the end, we all try to make past look a little more beautiful. I mean a first Buddha existed for sure, but the question is, does it makes sense to look for an evidence in a text, or to turn this around, and rather to question the validity of the information sources. I think you can perceive events quite differently, and the question arise what the people who wrote the texts were trying to achieve. Ans also such questions as do we need to know the truth of what really happened. Could stories that never happened teach us more and enlighten our mind better? I was lying down on my bed this morning and recalled myself in my youth sleeping till midday and how my mommy would come into my room, open the window and say that I stink a lot already. And I mean we really do not smell our stench, isn't it, until someone says this to us? If we do not feel our stench, does this exist???? Like a really awful stench, that none of us could bear... I mean the first time you would not believe your mommy, because you think she wants you to wake up and do the homework. But then, if you have brother, or sister, and he slept till midday without taking any shower, just as you did, then you will know, that the stench really existed. It made me think, that if we would meditate as the Buddha and reach enlightenment, then we will know, to the first Buddha, who really existed, was an enlightened being.