SV: "Buddha" before the Pali Canon?

[Lars Martin Fosse]

nanda chandran [SMTP:vpcnk at HOTMAIL.COM] skrev 19. september 2000 12:02:
> Take also into consideration the distinct nature of  Buddhist philosophy
-
> the whole system developed from the negative
> standpoint of anatta - whoever started it - whether his name was
> Gautama or not - is a genius - a "Buddha" without doubt. To say such
> a one didn't exist is to condemn as liars a host of great Buddhist
> philosophers down the ages who spent a good part of their lives
propagating
> the teachings of their revered master.

This is a misconception. To believe in a person that didn't exist does not
prove anybody a liar. You are only a liar if you consciously lie.
Otherwise, if you say something that is not correct, you are simply wrong.
Nor is it a valid argument that non-Buddhists mention the Buddha etc. The
existence of the Buddha was an established "fact" in India, whether he
existed or not. There is, by the way, a weakness in Steve Farmer's
argument. Claiming that traditions evolve in a certain manner does not in
itself disprove the existence of Jesus or the Buddha. The mechanisms behind
the development of the traditions that Steve describes may be perfectly
correct, and yet both Jesus and the Buddha may have existed. The question
is rather: what did they really do, and what did they really say - if they
existed? The (not canonical) gospel of Thomas gives a totally different
picture of Jesus than the canonical gospels. Which picture is correct? The
question opens for endless arguments, and scholars are stuck in a labyrinth
they cannot escape unless they choose to believe in the traditional
authority of the Church, which defines which gospels are "correct".

Best regards,

Lars Martin Fosse

Dr. art. Lars Martin Fosse
Haugerudvn. 76, Leil. 114,
0674 Oslo
Norway
Phone: +47 22 32 12 19
Fax 1:  +47 22 32 12 19
Fax 2:  +47 85 02 12 50 (InFax)
Email: lmfosse at online.no