dvija varNa

[L.S.Cousins]

Ven. Tantra writes:

>One is awestruck at the insistence of so many scholars
>to continue to speak on the subject of Buddhism as if
>one Sakyamuni actually existed. This is particularly
>troubling in light of the mere ìtissue of fableî and
>implausible history upon which ñ perhaps better put
>ñìBuddha-ismî so infirmly rests.

Well, I think you are right that most - indeed, practically all - 
scholars would affirm the historical existence of the Buddha. There 
are problems in regard to his biography, it is true. We don't know 
how much of the discourses and Vinaya material which tell us about 
his life-story is old. Some of it probably is, but it is difficult to 
be sure what.

We know that the Emperor Asoka was shown places associated with the 
Buddha's life-story around 150 years after his death. Since this is 
the earliest occurrence of writing in India, we cannot get earlier 
data from written sources.

That said, however, the biographical material is probably later than 
the teachings. So for me the kind of passages we get in e.g. some of 
the Majjhimanikaaya discourses presenting those teachings show every 
sign of being the product of a single originating mind. Tying this 
down in detail is necessarily difficult because we have no 
independent corroboration. but I wouldn't doubt it myself. The 
tradition itself was concerned to preserve those essential teachings, 
not personal details of the life-story of its founder.

Lance Cousins

-- 
HEADINGTON, UK

CURRENT EMAIL ADDRESS:
selwyn at ntlworld.com