Siddhartha Gautama, the former Indian Prince, first Bodhisattva and the founder of Buddhism is an incredibly important person to the faith. In old and new artworks, texts and writings, he is portrayed as having reached the ultimate state of peace and contentment in his existence.
While knowledge can be learnt, wisdom is earned and through this patience and unfaltering concentration on what is truly important in this world, he achieved perfection, becoming a model for all of humanity to strive towards. A recurring question that is asked about many important religious figures throughout time is whether they were real in a historical sense. Was Siddhartha Gautama an actual man who walked and lived on this Earth those thousands of years ago? The man who was the Buddha appears in many sources but whether those can prove historicity is uncertain.
The titles and names in which the Buddha is given in ancient Indian texts are telling of his function, character and also details of who this man was. 'Gautama' which he is often called is a clan name thus links him to others in history who may have common ancestry. 'Sakayamuni' contains the word 'sakya' which refers to the Sakya people, a group where Buddha came from. All together, the word 'sakayamuni' can be translated as the 'sage of the Sakyas' reaffirming that he is a person that had attained wisdom in which philosophers strive to gain and that he was part of the Sakya people. 'Bhagava' is an honorific used referring to saviours and deities highlighting that he is held in equal esteem to that of a perfect 'chosen one' or as divine and above human existence. His other three commonly used names are 'Buddha' which means 'The Awakened’, 'Tathagata' meaning 'Thus gone' and 'Bodhisattva' meaning 'enlightened-being'. The latter is a term used in Mahayana Buddhist sources. These three highlight how he has reached and achieved the most ultimate goal of life there is, but also empathises that he remains on Earth in order to do good for others such as the sick and poor. As Pye points out, "it is striking that there is no historically well attested personal given name" (Pye, M. (1979) p. 3-19) for the Buddha however, considering these array of names and what they mean and suggest does tell us a lot about who this person was. He was wise but also morally pure and sympathetic towards those in need.
While the above details do place the Buddha in a certain area and time, thought to be 2300BCE, hard evidence is not present. In order to find some clarity, scholars have looked into the historical setting in the time where the Buddha may have lived. In the ancient Buddhist scriptures, the 'sixteen great kingdoms' are discussed and detailed. Each of these kingdoms were "apparently tribal states that were struggling for power." Of these, the kingdom of Koushala and Magadha were the most powerful. The Shakyas, the group where the Buddha is said to be from in a political sense were rather frail and highly dependent on the Koushala kingdom. The Buddha was said to have told the king of Magadha while travelling south of the Shakya base in Kapilavastu according to early Buddhist scriptures. The exact political standing of the Shakyas is disputed by scholars however, it can be concluded that it was not prominent and likely to be overtaken by another state. According to Ikeda, it is very probable that the bad political position of his home and the pressure on his shoulders to make it a greater state when he came to throne would have been a contributing factor to him leaving and undertaking a religious life instead (Ikeda,D. (1976), p. 3-15). While this is definitely an interesting theory, that is all it can be without the evidence it lacks. As Nelson points out, "recorded history goes back only a thousand years" thus he insists "our dawn is shrouded in mystery"(Nelson, W. (1996), p. 15-38). In the time of the Buddha, history was not recorded by writing it down; rather, a large amount of important information was transferred between people by word of mouth and conserved through memorisation. This was mainly done by the Brahmins who were the intellectual cast of priests. The written ancient texts were not actually written down until three hundred or four hundred years after the Buddha died. Since memory is subject to change, and different people will remember and interpret stories in various ways, when it was written down, it would most likely be quite different to the original. According to Carrifers, “Some of the Buddha’s words were lost, others misunderstood...the monks added a good deal themselves, and in particular the figure of the Buddha tended to be magnified" (Carrithers, M. (2001), p. 1-11). For the uneducated or lay people, art was used to tell stories and to instruct others. While several of these artefacts have survived for thousands of years, like with the spoken word stories, art is very much up to interpretation. This subjectiveness is contrary to the objective nature of factual evidence.
While the stories and ‘legends’ of the Buddha, if you could call them that have been carried down for thousands of years, they are not to be taken literally if you were approaching them in search for historicity. Whether they are told in through texts or art, they are highly symbolic and miraculous thus are unrealistic to the objective historian. For example, Queen Maya, the woman who mothered the Buddha was said to have immaculately conceived him. One night, she dreamed of a white elephant descending into her womb. The child was fully formed, the size of a six month year old and was not supported or connected to Queen Maya’s body. This dream is depicted in many artworks including the Bharhut Stupa, a rock carving from 2nd-1st century BC. In order for the baby to be protected while being in the mortal womb of Queen Maya, he was encased in jewelled tabernacle. The birth itself was amazing as additionally, the baby did not cry and was also able to walk seven steps immediately. The event was indeed miraculous and matched a story in the Rig Veda about Indra, a god who was also birthed by first entering his human mother’s side. Foucher adds that the cesarean birth left Queen Maya with no scars. He highlights that while “it was absolutely necessary that the Buddha’s birth be superhuman...it must not become inhuman.” (Foucher, A. (1972) p. 22-30) This is a very important point to keep in consideration when especially looking at what the Buddhist faith offers. It is taught that any person can achieve Nirvana and be like the Buddha however if the Buddha was not a human person, he would not be an appropriate and realistic role model to follow. In terms of looking at the historicity of the story, Radhakrishnan asserts that “Great minds make individual contributions of permanent value to the thought of their age; but they do not, and cannot, altogether transcend the age in which they live.” (Radhakrishnan, S. (1949), p. 33-51) You can conclude that the Buddha was held in such high esteem and value to be likened to a god however must still insist he was a human person or at least lived a human existence amongst us at a certain fixed point in time.
Whether we can ever truly know and understand what the Buddha thought, said and did is a significant area of contention. Gombich in his book What the Buddha Thought, dedicated the thirteenth chapter to dealing with the criticism he received about his work. A professor at an American University said "There is no solid (i.e. non-confessional) evidence that I know of to link them [the Upanishads] to Gotama (the man who started the ball rolling in whatever unknown way he did)." He goes on to say that it is silly to speak of what the Buddha believed and said with such certainty where there is no proof to back it up. Gombrich responds to this by highlighting that he had certainly not made the contents of his book up and that the information is in the original texts. He acknowledges the significance of Buddhism and that it "is a ball which was set rolling by someone whose ideas are not known and- one may presume what he writes can never be known." (Gombrich, R. (2012), p. 193-196) Considering his response, an important point to highlight is his that Gombrich does not refute the American professor and say that Siddhartha Gautama was definitely a historical figure who started Buddhism, rather he states that it would have been started by 'someone' and admits that it is impossible to fully know him or prove whether he was real. His statement is rather matter of fact and calm. Gombrich does not seem bothered that the validity of his study and entire book is being questioned which makes you wonder does historicity matter when it comes to religion? According to Radharkrishtan, the "value of life [is] determined by the mystery behind it, by an infinity which cannot be rationalised. The pain and evil of life would be unendurable if the empirical universe were all, if world and man were self-sufficient, if there was nothing beyond, higher, deeper and more mysterious." Thus, religion being involved in that which is above human understanding is not rational and must not be rational. Buddhism, like all other religions are systems of faith, that means adherents must choose to believe no matter what. Seeing is not believing. If there were hard facts that showed that Siddhartha Gautama, Jesus or Moses existed, then people who didn't believe in them would just be ignoring what is factually true while the believers would just accept it in a way that we know the sky is blue or the grass is green. There is nothing religious of faith based about this, mystery and ambiguity to an extent is an inextricable feature of religion.
As religion is constantly changing, evolving and modernising in order to remain relevant to new generations and cultural contexts, what we know about the key figures in these religions also change. As aforementioned, due to the Buddha originally verbalising his teachings before history was written down, it is impossible to know the pure and original story. According to Penner, it is an especially "Western quest for the historical Buddha...this quest is based on an illusion because, as someone once wrote 'every text is always-already read'." ( However, just because you are unable to find the historical Buddha through unique or secondhand research does not mean that he lacks any less value as a role model of peaceful and fulfilling human living. Does reading a work of absolute fiction such as Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice mean it could not possibly have any effect on you because it is not fact? This is certainly not the case. As mentioned above, the Buddha's birth story was miraculous, super human but not inhuman. In his story, people can identify with his human qualities, trials and tribulations. As long as a character, real or not is relatable on some level, they can teach us about ourselves, what to do and what not to do. W.T. State in Ambedkar's book, The Buddha and His Dharma praises the moral and intellectual greatness of Buddhist ethics. "Knowledge has always been stressed by Buddhism as essential to salvation...the Christian scheme of thought the moral side of man has been divorced from the intellectual side. Far more of the world's misery is caused by stupidity and blind faith than by wickedness" (Ambedkar, B. (2011), p. 290-305). Even if the person Siddhartha Gautama was completely made up, it would not change the fact that he has had and continues to have a strong bearing and influence on many human lives throughout time.
In conclusion, Siddhartha Gautama, the former Indian Prince, first Bodhisattva and the founder of Buddhism appears in many sources whether he was a historical person who lived on this Earth is uncertain and may never be known. Indeed, as a character of an ancient story, the Buddha has been very much alive for thousands of years in written texts, art and in the hearts and minds of his believers and admirers. When looking at possible 'evidence' of his existence, scholars can conclude the time he may have lived in and even his home city but ultimately show that a creative person like him if not him had to have existed and kick started Buddhism. Whether he was real or not does not really matter a great deal, it does not make him any less important or powerful. Even characters in novels can be inspiring; even if they are made up, they were made up by humans and display humanity and a relatable and familiar way. Especially, when considering the nature of religion as faith based, having concrete historical evidence showing that significant people in their stories existed without a doubt makes belief in them unreligious. A religious belief in something or someone holds strong and true even if and especially if as Nelson said, the subject is shrouded in mystery.
References
B.R. Ambedkar, The Buddha and His Dharma: A Critical Edition, (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 290-305
Michael Carrithers, The Buddha, (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 1-11
A. Foucher, The Life of the Buddha: According to the Ancient Texts and Monuments of India, (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, Publishers, 1972), 22-30
Richard Gombrich, What the Buddha Thought, (Sheffield, Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2012), 193-196
Walter Henry Nelson, Gautama Buddha, (London: Luzac Oriental, 1996), 15-38
Daisaku Ikeda, Living Buddha, (New York: John Weatherhill, Inc., 1976), 3-15
Michael Pye, The Buddha, (London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd, 1979), 3-19
S. Radhakrishnan, Gautama the Buddha, (Bombay: Hind Kitabs Ltd. Publishers, 1949) 33-51
Hans H. Penner, Rediscovering the Buddha, (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 113-122
Comments