Tagged: Historical Buddha
Pages with this tag
Bronkhorst - Did the Buddha Believe in Karma and Rebirth (2021)
1Johannes Bronkhorst argues that the historical Buddha did believe in karma and rebirth, but that his crucial innovation was to redefine karma not as physical or mental activity, but as the psychological element of intention and desire (*tṛṣṇā*). This unique understanding explains why the Buddhist path to liberation is fundamentally psychological, focusing on mindfulness and insight, rather than relying on the physical asceticism or doctrines of an inactive Self found in contemporary traditions like Jainism. Bronkhorst critiques scholarly attempts to locate the "original" teaching in passages that resemble Vedic or Jaina ideas, suggesting these are more likely later borrowings or misunderstandings by followers who struggled to grasp the Buddha's distinct psychological focus.
Drewes - The Idea Of The Historical Buddha (2017)
2In a reevaluation of the Buddha's historicity, David Drewes argues that scholarship has never actually established that the Buddha was a real person and that he cannot be properly considered a historical figure. The author traces the development of the idea from the early nineteenth century, when the Buddha's existence was an open question, through the pivotal work of scholars like Eugène Burnouf, who separated the final Buddha, Śākyamuni, from his mythical predecessors based on Nepalese tradition rather than new evidence. Drewes contends that subsequent influential scholars, such as T.W. Rhys Davids and Hermann Oldenberg, cemented the Buddha's historicity not through factual discovery but by presupposing it and defending it with fallacious arguments, such as the logical necessity of a founder or appeals to a scholarly consensus that was not yet established. Even major twentieth-century proponents like E.J. Thomas, Étienne Lamotte, and André Bareau admitted that no reliable historical data could be extracted from the legends. Drewes concludes that since early texts depict a generic, supernatural being rather than a specific individual—with names like "Siddhārtha" being late additions and clan names like "Śākya" being potentially mythical—the Buddha belongs in the same category as other ahistorical founders like Vyāsa or Laozi, whose existence is a matter of belief rather than empirical fact.
Hinüber - The Historical Dr. Drewes And The Buddha (2023)
3In a rebuttal to Dr. Drewes's critique, Oskar von Hinüber defends his argument for the Buddha as a historical person by asserting that Drewes focuses on the opinions of other scholars rather than engaging with primary sources. Hinüber reiterates his own method, which involves analyzing the earliest possible texts for linguistic clues and for details that were later suppressed by the tradition, as these are likely to contain fragments of historical memory. He refutes Drewes's specific counterarguments concerning the Upaka episode and the Jambu tree meditation, defending his philological analysis and dismissing Drewes's claims of textual corruption and flawed mythological parallels. Ultimately, Hinüber argues that while a full biography is impossible, a vivid historical memory existed in ancient India, distinct from formal historiography, and that traces of this memory of a real person can be found in the oldest Buddhist texts through careful scholarly application rather than abstract debate.