How honest are the works and legends surrounding Siddhārtha Gautama?
Wiki, that fountain of knowledge immutable, tells me that

Various collections of teachings attributed to him were passed down by oral tradition, and first committed to writing about 400 years later.

Are we left with a HJ v MJ scenario? I mean, was he a prince who left the palace to seek inner calm; did he 'do his own thing' yet inspire others (followers); or was there a prophesy about a new Hindu Avatar that was transposed onto his personal story, unwanted/unexpected?
Are evidences worthy of his 'ordinary' life and do they also reflect on his awakening too?

I hope that made sense.

You should've called it, "What can we reasonably infer about the historical Guatama?"

I didn't wish to end up on charges of plagiarism.

And then I changed my mind..

We can be fairly sure that the early Buddhist traditions believed that there was such a man. They attributed many texts to him - those that make up the Sutta Pitaka of the Pali Canon. Beyond that, there is little evidence...

Given the nature of movements on the borders of the Brahmanic traditions around the start of Buddhism - it seems more likely than less that there was a charismatic founder. The earliest of the texts in those suttas (according to linguistic approaches to dating the Pali texts) seem to share a consensus regarding such a person.

That tells us little though. What can we guess at? Prince/King were probably an upgrading of local-clan-leader (the Sakyans, if we believe the tradition) / He was a successful charismatic leader; as was Mahavira founder of Jainism. He lived long enough for the Sangha, as a monastic order, to be established and flourish.... Even this requires some speculation...

What we do have is those texts you mention - in Pali - in Burma, Sri Lanka and Thailand - and some translations. What we know the early traditions believed is what is in them, and they are (some of them) interesting reading..

---
Dave W
http://dispirited.org
---

Somebody cares about my thread!

Yeah! This is one of my favourite topics...


---
Dave W
http://dispirited.org
---

I'd think that four centuries of oral tradition is one long game of Chinese whispers. The chance of there being much of the original events left in the first written accounts would have to be minimal.

Yes and no.

(my usual reply).

Of course there is change and interpolation. But also worth noting the power of oral cultures to preserve through a variety of formal linguistic mechanisms..

The evidence of the Āgamas (in china) helps too- there is much that is opaque here- but we may be too hasty if we judge the memory/transmission efficacy of oral cultures by the standards of literary ones...


---
Dave W
http://dispirited.org
---

daveWW wrote:We can be fairly sure that the early Buddhist traditions believed that there was such a man. They attributed many texts to him - those that make up the Sutta Pitaka of the Pali Canon. Beyond that, there is little evidence...

Given the nature of movements on the borders of the Brahmanic traditions around the start of Buddhism - it seems more likely than less that there was a charismatic founder. The earliest of the texts in those suttas (according to linguistic approaches to dating the Pali texts) seem to share a consensus regarding such a person.

That tells us little though. What can we guess at? Prince/King were probably an upgrading of local-clan-leader (the Sakyans, if we believe the tradition) / He was a successful charismatic leader; as was Mahavira founder of Jainism. He lived long enough for the Sangha, as a monastic order, to be established and flourish.... Even this requires some speculation...

What we do have is those texts you mention - in Pali - in Burma, Sri Lanka and Thailand - and some translations. What we know the early traditions believed is what is in them, and they are (some of them) interesting reading..

---
Dave W
http://dispirited.org
---

Yea I think this is about as far as it could go.

Even if Buddha didn't exist, it holds a different weight than the non existence of someone like Jesus. Buddha never claimed to be a god, or messenger from god, he didn't die to forgive sins, he doesn't answer prayers, and doesn't even want to be worshiped. The non existence of Buddha means an inspirational human symbol was created for the sake of philosophy. If he did exist it's still not all that important, for the most part he only taught a philosophy that promised a healthy state of mind. The non existence of someone like Jesus or Muhammad would mean a lot more to the faith of their followers. Messenger from god carries more weight and more potential motive too lie.

I think it is possible that there evolved a set of myths around an individual, and writings attributed to him, that were taken up by a monastic movement as their founder. That an actual person existed is of course entirely reasonable too.

The point of the importance of actual history is well taken, but should not I think be overdone. The existence of a central figure, a Buddha, is important to Buddhist ritual and stories, and whether they are historically correct or not is only an intellectual case of studying your finger while pointing at the moon.