One of my professors and I started a Buddhism study / meditation group about a month ago. We’ve met once so far, mostly as an organizational meeting to find out where we all stood and what we wanted to do. One of the things that we decided we wanted to do is to have a group reading.
As the first book we’ll read, my professor picked Old Path White Clouds: Walking in the Footsteps of the Buddha. I’ve read some of Thich Nhat Hanh’s other books and enjoyed them, so I was happy about the selection. I requested the book from OhioLINK, got it a few days later, and started digging in.
Old Path White Clouds is a biography of the historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, with expositions on Buddhism sprinkled throughout the text. From amazon: “Hanh, a Vietnamese Buddhist monk, has drawn from 24 Pali, Sanskrit, and Chinese sources to create this highly acessible retelling of the story of the Buddha.” I’ve read about a third of it so far, and it’s been quite enjoyable. However, the more I read it, the more I question the existence of a real historical Buddha. I’m having a hard time believing that the sources are accurate, i.e., they haven’t been altered over time, embellished, etc. There are just too many things in the Buddha’s story that are … well, perfect. Things seem to work out perfectly. It all seems very fiction-like, and not very historical. To borrow the word from the amazon snippet, it seems more of just a story – a framework to put the teachings in.
In thinking about this, I realized that whether or not I believe there was a historical Buddha named Siddhartha Gautama doesn’t really matter. The Buddha was not a god; he was not a messenger from a god; he was just a human. Buddhism does not call on its followers to worship the Buddha (or anything, for that matter), so one doesn’t have to worry about whether or not he really existed. Even if he didn’t exist, the teachings that he supposedly taught are still here. It’s kind of similar to how the Buddha (real or not, heh) responded to his disciples when they questioned whether there was a god or not. Essentially, he refused to answer the question, because whether there was or not didn’t make any difference. They’d still all be in the same situation, facing the same life, with the same problems.
Comments 20
This is correct. If final historical proof was found, suffering would still exist, and if not, suffering still exist. Identifying it and seeking to end it is the only thing a person has to do to call themselves a Buddhist practitioner.
Posted 02 Mar 2007 at 10:11 pm ¶Hi Dave,
That’s exactly how I feel about it.
Thanks for commenting.
Posted 03 Mar 2007 at 11:38 am ¶It was really nice to have this article as the first one come up after typing, “Did The Buddha Really Exist” into Google. Not being required to believe in him is what makes this practice as wonderful as is. Kudos!
Posted 03 Apr 2007 at 9:46 am ¶I’m glad you found the post helpful, Val.
Posted 03 Apr 2007 at 6:40 pm ¶No disputation of your opinion and thinking on this. You rasied the question in me for a moment, and I came to the conclusion that Buddha did exist. And that He did exist and overcame while being a real human being makes the accomplishment both more wonderful and accesssible yet to everyone.
Posted 08 Apr 2007 at 4:29 pm ¶Doug: Thanks for commenting. I think either way you look at it, Buddhism is still a good thing.
Love your avatar, by the way!
Posted 10 Apr 2007 at 1:30 pm ¶Very Interesting. As a Ch’an Buddhist monk – I am involved witht he Benedictines in an inter-faith dialogue. Recently, I read a book entitled ‘Who Wrote the New Testament?’ (by Mack). Basically, when viewed from the academic perspective, there is no evidence whatsoever for the physical existence of Jesus Christ. The oldest part of the New Testament is Paul’s Letter to the Galatians – about AD 40 – and that has a very different picture of Christ as presented in the synoptic gospels, written, incidently between 70 AD-120AD.
Now, whilst explaining this to a friend of mine, she pointed-out that more or less the same situation exists for the ‘historical’ existence of the Lord Buddha. Outside of the Buddhist scriptures, for the tme the Lord Buddha is said to have physically existed, there is no evidence whatsoever. Objective evidence of the existence of ‘Buddhism’ as a path to liberation, comes to use from the Rock Inscriptions ordered by emperor Ashoka – some 250 years or so after the Buddha had entered pariNirvana.
But then, many Greek philosophers exist to us, merely through their teachings. As they do not claim a ‘divine’ origin, nor demand ‘blind faith’, all we need to know about them, is what they thought. The details of their actual existence seem rather banal and minor to the sheer depth of their insight and understanding of both the universe, and our place within it. I tend to see the Buddha in this light.
There are major differences between Christianity and Buddhism of course, and there are, (to be fair), many strands of Christian thought that are not part of the ‘mainstream’ church that claims Christ solely as the ‘Sone of God’, to the exclusion fo all other philosophies. The Gnostic Christians, did not view Christ as a real person, but rather a constructed gate-way to higher wisdom.
Perhaps the Lord Buddha is like this as well. Buddhist scriptures do seem to convey the intellect of a single, coherent and constant human being – particularly in their ali manifestation. The Lord Buddha speaks directly to us, the listener and reader. He instructs us in hows to change our Minds, through meditation, and modify our behaviour through discipline. No inter-mediatory ‘faith’ is required for Buddha’s teaching to be effective. No faith in His teachings, nor indeed, in His existence – as belief in either one will not free use from the suffering inherent in Samsara – the round of birth, death and re-birth.
I think the Lord buddha did exist, because, despite two hundred or so years between His supposed passing, and the writing down of his teachings, when the teachings were written down, the philosophy was more or less complete, as if it had been memorised and passed-on in an attempt to convey it completely, from one generation to the next. And the insistance upon the purity of ‘action’, as one of the Noble Eight Fold Path, probably prevented any lying or falsification from taking place, through fear of bad karmic results!
And if the academics – Gruber and Kersten are correct (see: The Original Jesus – Buddhist Sources of Christianity), then early Buddhism might well have effected the development of early Christianity. Christ might have been a Buddhist, if indeed, He existed!
May you all be happy and free from suffering!
Posted 08 May 2007 at 1:08 pm ¶Shia Da Dao: Thanks for your comment. I find it interesting that Buddhism and Christianity are, in a way, in a similar “predicament” (if you would call it that). Of course, for Christians, it’s imperative that they believe that Jesus Christ existed and was the son of God. For Buddhists, it doesn’t really matter one way or another, just as you said. The Buddha is, indeed, very similar to Greek philosophers: it’s all about their teachings, not about them.
And if the academics – Gruber and Kersten are correct (see: The Original Jesus – Buddhist Sources of Christianity), then early Buddhism might well have effected the development of early Christianity. Christ might have been a Buddhist, if indeed, He existed!
Now *that* is an intriguing thought. I’ll have to check out that book.
Posted 08 May 2007 at 4:11 pm ¶I smile because years ago it dawned on me that the insistance on proof of this or that’s factual existence in in itself an absurd pursuit. Life is absurd: be good anyway. When one realizes that “it doesn’t matter” perhaps one may find freedom of spirit. Until that moment, we are lost because we are “chasing the wind”.
Posted 21 May 2007 at 1:56 pm ¶web jones: Nicely put. That’s similar to what I realized. Whether or not the Buddha existed doesn’t REALLY matter, one way or another. His teachings are still here, and they’re still great, so, as you said, “be good anyway”, even if all of the history of the Buddha is fake.
Posted 21 May 2007 at 2:30 pm ¶I too, came across this page after searching for evidence Buddha existed. However, i also came across this substantial page: http://religionnewsblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/historicity-of-buddha-lack-of-evidence.html, and was wondering about what manner of evidence the “Rock Inscriptions ordered by emperor Ashoka” provide, as i did not see them mentioned in that article.
Also, Shi Da Dao, there is good evidence that the gospels were written as early 35 – 40 AD, as well as massive mss evidence all told, while men like Tacitus and Josephus also make reference to Jesus. http://www.gospeloutreach.net/bible.html.
I would be interested in what contrasts the writer think are between the four gospels and the epistles.
At least no one here seems to be buying Da Vince Code fiction as fact (some do): http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/thedavincicode.html
Thanks
Posted 27 Nov 2007 at 3:33 pm ¶Daniel: I’m honestly not that familiar with scholarly thoughts on the Asokan pillars. I’ve just finished a course on ancient Indian culture and society, and in the history text we used (by Thapar), it was expressed that Asoka was Buddhist, the pillars were related to his conversion, etc. If you’re interested in learning more about it, I was able to find this; just bear in mind that it is offered by a Buddhist website.
If by “the writer”, you mean me – I have no opinion on the four Gospels and the Epistles. My knowledge of the Bible is woefully inadequate.
Regarding the Da Vinci Code link… From the link you provided:
Say what now? Dan Brown did not produce a fiction book and present it as fact. It says “A Novel” right on the front! Definition of “novel”:
From what I saw of the uproar over the book, it was the readers who made it something it wasn’t, not the author.
Posted 28 Nov 2007 at 9:24 pm ¶Peace to you all.
All but one of the theological scholars Ihave read, are of the opinion that the Christian synotic gospels are the product of the destruction of the second temple (AD70), and not before. The idea being that the Roman destruction of jewish culture actually led to the writing of the Gospels. There is a slight speculation that a fragment of St mark’s gospel has been discovered, but this is beleived to be a product of misindentification. Flavious Josephus, the Romanised Jewish historian doe smention Jesus – but again, modern scholarship has shownn that this reference is a later added fraud. And Tacitus was vague in his writing, and writing after the event. Certain letters of St Paul (but not all can be attributed to him) are of about AD40 – again, some scholars doubt that he is talking about Jesus Christ (whom he never met), but rather the ‘messiah’ (Chrestos) of the Essene community.
Thank you
Posted 04 Mar 2008 at 2:14 pm ¶Tis is a response I made to the possible historical evidenc e of the Buddha;
‘While there is not much to talk about with regards to Siddharta Gautama and his path to Buddhahood, it raises an important point about where these teachings originate and their validity after all this time. As we all know, a simple sentence passed orally around a room full of people can become extremely distorted after a short time which begs the question on how accurate this 2600 year old Chinese whisper can be.’ (The Buddha Was Wrong – Page 11).
This is quoted from the section entitled ‘Buddha – Man or Myth’? In that the reader (and presumably the author) are expected to ‘chose’ one description over the other. I consider this a false dichotomy – it is obvious that the Buddha is defintely ‘both’, that is that He represents both descriptions without a shadow of a doubt.
The original Buddhism that grew around a single enlightened man some 2600 years ago in north India, has changed dramaticaly over that time, as it has travelled and encountered new cultures and beliefs. From Indian ascetics sitting under trees, to Tibetan nuns and monks who are married and live as a family in a monastery. And the fairly modernistic form of Buddhism current in the West.
However, at the start of the movement that became known as ‘Buddhism’, what can be siad with any confidence about the actual physical existence of the Buddha? The Pali suttas, or teachings of the Buddha contain what little bographical detail there is. This has been gathered together over-time, and a coherent description of a ‘life’ has been acquired. In its self however, this is not proof of the physical existence of the Buddha and evidence must be gathered elsewhere – outside of the suttas.
Such evidence is available;
‘Lumbini was uncovered by archaeologists in 1896. The most important find at the spot was 6.5 metre high stone pillar erected by the Emperor Asoka in 245 BC with the inscription:
“Twenty years after the his coronation King Devaanampiya Piyadasi (Asoka) came here and paid homage, because the Buddha , the sage of the Sakyan clan, was born here. He ordered a stone relief to be made and a stone pillar to be erected, to indicate that the Blessed One was born here, He exempted the village Lumbini from taxes and reduced its toll of produce (from the usual quarter to one eight.”
Since the records of ancient India give only the intervals between events but do not, like later records, date events themselves, it is necessary in order to establish dates in Inidan history to call on Greek historians. Indo-Greek relations developed as a result of the Indian campaign of Alexandra the Great (327BC). About 303 BC the Indian Emperor Candragupta Maurya came to a territorial agreement and entered into diplomatic relations with Seleukos Nikator, Alexandra’s former general who ruled over Babylonia. Through the reports of Greek ambassador Megathenes, who was accredited to the imperial court of Pataliputta (Patna), Candragupta (GK Sandrokottos)became known to Greek historians, and through them we are able to date his accession to 321BC.
This date further enables us to give precise dates to the sequence of eents listed in the Singhalese chronicles Dipasamsa and Mahavamsa (fourth to sixth centuries AD). According to these, Candragupta reigned for twenty-four years (until 297) his son Bindusara twenty-eight years (until 269), after which it took four years before Bindusara’s son Asoka succeeded in eliminating his brothers and anointing himself ruler. This event would therefore have occured in 265BC.
The leap back to the birth of the Buddha is made possible by he statement in both chronicles that Asoka became the ruler two hundred and eighteen years after the Parinibbana (the final passing) of the Buddha. This event is therefore dated at 483BC. Since the teacher lived to be eighty, his date of birth comes out at 563BC.’
(The Historical Buddha – By HW Schumann – Page 8-10).
It is further interesting to note, that there are other rock edicts from Emperor Asoka, spread throughout his kingdom, denoting the names of foreign rulers he has diplomatic relations with;
1) Antiochus II of Syria.
2) Ptolemy II of Egypt.
3) Antigonus of Macedonia.
4) Magas of Crete.
5) Alexandra of Epirus.
(Rock Edict XIII)
The latest possible year when ALL these leaders were still alive is 258BC. Counting back twelves years to Asoka’s coronation, and then two hundred and eighteen years mentioned by the chronicles, we arrive at 488BC for the death year, and 568 for the birth-year of the Buddha.
There is also the ‘Dotted Chronical of Canton’. This Chinese calender shows one dot for every year after the Buddha’s death. That is until the year 489AD. At that time it showed 973 dots which would place the Buddha’s Parinibbana to the year 486, and his birth to 566BC.
The founder of the other great religion ‘Jainism’, that is, Mahavira (Great hero) is mentioned in the Buddhists scriptures as Nigantha Nataputta – making He and the Buddha contemporaries. Mahavira may have died in 476BC, according to European scholars. But Jainist scholars prefer the date of 527BC. A Jainist Sutra says that Mahavira survived the Buddha by seven years – if Mahavira died in 476BC, then this would confirm the Buddha’s death-year as 483BC, agreeing with the chronology of the Rock Edict.
The eminant scholar Sukumar Dutt, has written many books on the historical development of Buddhism, from its inception up until modern times. He is not uncritical of Buddhism, but fair in his analysis. He feels that the definite ’stamping’ of the physical life of the Buddha is not possible to any great certainty, however, he has this to say;
‘Positing the Buddha of cult, the legends insist that thuswise must he be known and contemplated by all his followers. Yet, implicit in them, there is a vague, nebulous sort of awareness of a Buddha “out of te cult”. It appears at least in one legend in which the author passes from the subjective attitude towards the Lord to an objective presentation of him, showing how the Lord appeared to people outside the circle of his followers and devotees.’ (The Buddha And Five After Centuries – By S Dutt – Page 6)
Evidence does exist therefore, for the probable physical existence of the Lord Buddha. A plethora of teachings claiming originaton with Him certainly do exist. Asoka’s Rock Edicts, both religious and secular confirm that a mere 218 years after the passing of the Buddha, it was believed that he had actually existed. A healthy scepticism should always be maintained however, inaccordance with the Buddha’s own instruction. I found this statement interesting;
‘Modern scepticism, which is based, like the faith that it repudiates, on an instinctive belief in the reality of the outward world and an instinctive disbelief in the reality of the inward life, sees in death the extinction of the soul (which indeed has never been anything but a name) as well as dissolution of the body.” (The Creed of Buddha – By E Holmes – Page 9)
For a discussion on the historical evidence for the existence of the Buddh, please see;
Historical Documentation
http://www.abhidhamma.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=214
And this is a good survey of early Buddhism;
The Original Buddhism
http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=626
Modern contemporary Buddhism, although growing out of ancient teachings (and in many ways perpetuating and preserving those teachings), can not be conisdered directly representative of the original Buddhism taught under a tree in northern India, 2600 years ago. The Theravada is not the original Buddhism it claims to be, and Mahayana is not the latest form. Although these ideas are often passed-on as if they were true. Buddhism is not static, but a continuous development. Any valid critique of it, therefore, must take this reality into account.
Thank you
Posted 04 Mar 2008 at 2:16 pm ¶Whilst I was online a few weeks ago, was informed about an essay criticsng the Buddha. I read the document and was moved to write a critique of it. It may be read for free at;
The Buddha Was Wronged
http://www.chandao.co.uk/documents/thebuddhawaswronged.pdf
Many aspects of the Buddha are attacked, including His existence.
Thank you
Posted 07 Mar 2008 at 9:17 am ¶Shi Di Dao:
I just want to note that 218 years is a bit beyond “mere.”
A lot can happen in that amount of time.
Posted 07 Mar 2008 at 9:53 am ¶In reference to Daniel’s post, referring to Jesus’ historical existence, I became curious as I have heard over and over again that Jesus’ existence is evidenced by the writings of Tacitus and Josephus, though it is not of much importance to me, as I am Buddhist and not Christian, the sheer amount of times these men were mentioned drove me to seek out their writings, as they are the earliest non-biblical references to Jesus.
Tacitus, writing in the 2nd century, mentions Jesus one time:
“But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.”
This is oft cited as historical evidence of a physical Jesus and his crucification, since Tacitus mentions Jesus without criticism of his existence. However,it seemed noteworthy to me that both Jesus and Pilate are mentioned only one time in passing, and writing from the 2nd century, and from the opinion that Christianity is a “pernicious superstition,” he would not have much reason to prove or disprove Jesus’ existence (as it was irrelevant to Nero and the fires of Rome of which he was discussing), but rather would take the word of followers of the religion. (In much the way that a historian discussing Buddhists might write “Buddha, the founder of the name,” without explicitly saying “Buddha, who might not have existed.” Christian’s at the time of course would have said Jesus was the founder, so why would Tacitus write otherwise? Christ’s actual physical existence would have been more or less irrelevant to Tacitus, especially as it is clear in his passage that he does not regard Christ as divine.
The writings of Josephus, on the other hand, written at the end of the 1st century, mention Jesus exactly twice:
“Antiquities 20.9.1 But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.”
and
“Antiquities 18.3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of strange works, a teacher of people who with pleasure received the unusual. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.”
It is interesting to note that very few scholars believe the second passage to be unaltered, and other translations of this passage have significant differences, for example “if it be lawful to call him a man” is present only in versions passed down through Christian sources. Also, in other translations there are many qualifiers such as “it is reported that…” which are suspiciously missing from the above version, making certain phrases sound unequivocal: “He was the Christ” (in contrast to “the so-called Christ” as he wrote earlier in the same work), and the statements about his resurrection and divine prophecies. The Christian monks who copied Tacitus’ works could have easily and innocently dropped such qualifiers from translation, as they would have seemed unnecessary (or perhaps blasphemous).
Without making a statement either way on Jesus’ existence (it is really impossible to know for certain with our inability to time-travel
), I would say it is interesting that in the Bible there are many miraculous events conducted with many eye-witnesses present, yet there are no secular historical records found from historians writing in those places at those times, and references come only after Christianity is established. The Christian rebuttals I can find argue: these things were not recorded since the Christians were marginalized and persecuted by the Romans and Jews, however it seems to me such events (healing the deaf, mute, and blind; on two occasions materializing food and drink for over 4,000 individuals; raising many from the dead; etc.) would be of note to any historian as a unique and outstanding event of their time, worthy of investigation.
It appears to me that from an objective standpoint, Tacitus and Josephus (cited nearly every time the veracity of the New Testament is questioned) do not provide any unequivocal evidence one way or the other, as each reference is made in passing while discussing a separate main focus (Josephus’ second and larger Jesus reference, starting “Now there was about this time…” is one sidetrack paragraph in a discussion of the Jewish Wars happening at this time, and is unrelated to the paragraphs before and after it (which has led some historians to suggest it was completely inserted by the monks copying the work, but I would not go that far, as simply adding the “it is reported that” qualifiers found in some translations makes the paragraph historical and objective).
Please, do not be offended if you are Christian, as this is not at all my intent, though clearly it is difficult to have objective discussion on a topic which is so emotional and fundamental to many.
However, to a true Christian (as to a Buddhist), I believe, the specific historical evidence is irrelevant, as “Faith” is a central tenant to Christianity.
It is my opinion, however, that Christians citing Josephus and Tacitus are doing a disservice to their fellow Christians, as both of these passages (esp. Tacitus) are rather critical of Christianity, and the fact that they are the earliest non-biblical references, yet are removed from the time and place of Christ, casts more doubt than proof.
Thank you for your insightful blog-post, I agree that physical evidence of Buddha is irrelevant, as the Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path are all that I need
. In the same vein I feel Christians would be better served following the teachings of their prophet, rather than constantly attempting to spin off-hand references to Jesus into evidence.
Peace
Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 10:41 am ¶If the Buddha did not exist what are the implications of this for the concept of enlightenment? Granted that the Buddhist path may/will lead you towards a happier life, free from a great deal of suffering etc , but how certain can we be that it will ultimately lead to enlightenment without having compelling proof that someone has achieved this?
Posted 19 Jul 2008 at 5:20 pm ¶Hi. Responding to posts placed around mid-May (sorry for the late timing
I just wanted to point out that no one is really trying to defame Buddha- in fact, this conversation is one of the only pages on the web that even talks about his physical existence/non-existence.
In the Christian cosmology/theology, we have a being called Satan that does anything he can to lie and defame this man Jesus. The pure fact that relatively no one is trying to disprove the very existence of Mohammad, Buddha, Zoroaster, etc. when there is such obvious ground to cast doubt, shows that academically, the world IS NOT without motive.
Jesus is the most loved and hated man on the earth. Period. No other man that revolutionized society to such an extent has had his own culture he spawned turn so violently against itself, attacking the very extent on which it is based. You don’t see a widespread attempt to disprove Muhammad’s very existence among the Muslims, nor Buddha among the Buddhists. A blockbuster movie is being released against Jesus’ for crying out loud!
I like Buddhism, in that it is brash, real, and upfront about the suffering in the world. I think it is this that so many people feel so easily aligned with! As do I! However, Buddhism, in my mind, cannot offer a complete theology of why bad vs. good things happen, or even an objective basis to distinguish between the two. Christianity does answer this, and even tells us that Satan (i.e. the thief), who hates Truth, comes only to steal, kill, and destroy. Jesus comes to do the opposite. (So for example, Alzheimer’s, Aids, Cancer, deaths of children, broken marriages, broken homes, all fall under the realm of Satan, who can only pervert good.)
Posted 26 Jul 2008 at 2:33 am ¶It should matter if Buddha existed, if not, then there is no reason for life. Of course you know Buddhism teaches about reincarnation, acquiring good karma through good deeds, and eventually you reach Nirvana. If Buddha did not exist, then there is no reincarnation, there is no karma, and there is no Nirvana.
I am not a Buddhist. I am a believer in Jesus. I honestly do not understand how people can put their faith in Buddha, considering there was nothing even written down about him for 400 years after his death. And then what was written down included stories that seemed so unimaginable, especially since Buddha was a normal person who sought answers and did not find any answers until he was around 35. It doesnt make sense for there to be anything special about his birth or his life, until the point at which he became fully enlightened.
-Chris (different than the guy 2 posts up, but I agree 100% with his view and didnt read it until after I wrote this.. heh)
Posted 02 Aug 2008 at 1:30 pm ¶Trackbacks & Pingbacks 1
[...] In a previous post here on my blog, I even commented that I think that, most likely, the historical Buddha didn’t exist. And that’s okay! Whether the fellow existed or not ultimately doesn’t matter. The fact [...]