"Buddha" before the Pali Canon?

[Georg von Simson]

Steve Farmer wrote (I quote only the last sentences of his long and
interesting message):

> This is probably my last
>post in the thread:

That would be a pity!

> I must get back to my own research (these posts
>were written on breaks, on a whim). And I've pretty much
>exhausted what I have to say, in any case, and seem to be a chorus
>of one voice only.

I should like to join your chorus. Though still interested in the question
of the date of the historical Buddha - because I have the impression that
he must have been a charismatic religious leader who started a movement
that can be distinguished from other movements of his time - I would agree
with most of what you wrote about the historicity of the biographical
tradition. Every time we see a good motive for the invention of a
biographical detail, we should be sceptical (but there are still details
where it seems to be difficult to find a motive for a later invention, e.g.
the Buddha's origin from the Sakya clan). The story of a great man's life
had to be meaningful from beginning to end, and meaning was provided by the
at that time existing myths. This idea prompted me to write an article
("Characterzing by Contrast: The Case of the Buddha and Devadatta, BhISma
and KarNa", in the press) in which I try to show how mythical features are
used to characterize the Buddha.

For the rest see Jan Houben's message about earlier attempts of explaining
the details of the life of the Buddha along the line of myth. Senart was
rejected by most scholars, partly because some of his arguments seem rather
strained and the solar myth model went out of fashion after him, and partly
because he apparently went too far by explaining away the historical Buddha
altogether. It is difficult to find the right balance when you have got a
good idea!

> Eppur si muove (maybe)!

Georg v. Simson