Reading Mythology but Seeing History: the Historical Buddha and the Historical Hercules.
24 February 2014 [link youtube]
Why is "the historical Buddha" so controversial? As the title suggests, part of the problem is that we're reading mythology, but selectively treating it as history. An unscripted discussion of some of the issues.
Youtube Automatic Transcription
it's easier to get an audience to laugh when
fun of, question and look at their own religion, their I don't know, maybe that just means that you're Why is it that people sit up straight in their seats, or avoid the issue? should ask, "Why is it that people fly off Why is it that even respectable, academic y'know, somebody is an imperialist, somebody talking in terms of the historical Buddha? And, y'know, [if we] shift the frame of reference the history of the world that, today, nobody Herakles? (A name you probably know as Hercules.) guy. You may have seen a vase in a museum. of Herakles, hundreds of stories, myths, legends, you can look through the legends of Herakles reality of Herakles," nobody would get angry and nobody would accuse you of being an imperialist, dangerous tendency. is making a selection. You would be sitting myths presented to you, looking at the archaeological appeal to me." These are my preference, these So, you're not uncovering something new. is a myth. all that you're discovering is your own preference, evidence. sources, on Herakles, they were already interested your see Herodotus discussing that there's and legend, but that there's also an historical and who was a real human being, and, you know, separate the two, or what stories are theological ultimate historical origins, of the myths Um, y'know, if you read Aristotle, there's in ancient Greece, the disease epilepsy was "Herakles-disease", in the same way that today famous people who happened to have the disease, sure, there's a feeling, that you're not treading There's a feeling that there's a human reality, at you there. And you realize that if there not super-human or supernatural), but if there then you imagine how memorable that would for everyone who knew him, maybe for everyone whenever he had an epileptic fit, all the back, or had to try to restrain him. that selection, for people to look at mythology reality", but what you can't lose sight of selection. You're just revealing your own And the ancient sources, like Herodotus, that they were engaged in the same thing. They time, "Okay, this is what I feel is historically is what speaks to me. Buddha, the real problem is we don't deal get into a cycle, and it's like the childrens' some group of texts, some set of ideas, as into both manufacturing new evidence out of [They] get into proposing, "Okay, let's pretend let's pretend some other evidence does." That's to do that [i.e., misrepresenting evidence]. becomes a distorting, biased, myopic misrepresentation, For me, one of the most common experiences to people with PhDs in Buddhist Studies) that major part of Buddhism, there's... gasp! Suddenly a lecture at S.O.A.S., the University of London, I said, "Yeah, of course, almost on every idea of hell and the afterlife," and... gasp! people got uncomfortable. And that crowd, in the crowd than any other ethnic group. scholars and students of Buddhism there. taboo? Well, it's because people went through Buddha, the original Buddha, the historical So, "therefore", ignore all of this evidence, and pieces of evidence. Or that people called Herakles to flatter strong, and beat people to death with a club? something that only appears relatively late iconography. Is that original or not? You to never lose sight of your role as a modern never, never let yourself, get into a frame paper in front of you; to never be the person and modern expectations onto ancient texts.
fun of, question and look at their own religion, their I don't know, maybe that just means that you're Why is it that people sit up straight in their seats, or avoid the issue? should ask, "Why is it that people fly off Why is it that even respectable, academic y'know, somebody is an imperialist, somebody talking in terms of the historical Buddha? And, y'know, [if we] shift the frame of reference the history of the world that, today, nobody Herakles? (A name you probably know as Hercules.) guy. You may have seen a vase in a museum. of Herakles, hundreds of stories, myths, legends, you can look through the legends of Herakles reality of Herakles," nobody would get angry and nobody would accuse you of being an imperialist, dangerous tendency. is making a selection. You would be sitting myths presented to you, looking at the archaeological appeal to me." These are my preference, these So, you're not uncovering something new. is a myth. all that you're discovering is your own preference, evidence. sources, on Herakles, they were already interested your see Herodotus discussing that there's and legend, but that there's also an historical and who was a real human being, and, you know, separate the two, or what stories are theological ultimate historical origins, of the myths Um, y'know, if you read Aristotle, there's in ancient Greece, the disease epilepsy was "Herakles-disease", in the same way that today famous people who happened to have the disease, sure, there's a feeling, that you're not treading There's a feeling that there's a human reality, at you there. And you realize that if there not super-human or supernatural), but if there then you imagine how memorable that would for everyone who knew him, maybe for everyone whenever he had an epileptic fit, all the back, or had to try to restrain him. that selection, for people to look at mythology reality", but what you can't lose sight of selection. You're just revealing your own And the ancient sources, like Herodotus, that they were engaged in the same thing. They time, "Okay, this is what I feel is historically is what speaks to me. Buddha, the real problem is we don't deal get into a cycle, and it's like the childrens' some group of texts, some set of ideas, as into both manufacturing new evidence out of [They] get into proposing, "Okay, let's pretend let's pretend some other evidence does." That's to do that [i.e., misrepresenting evidence]. becomes a distorting, biased, myopic misrepresentation, For me, one of the most common experiences to people with PhDs in Buddhist Studies) that major part of Buddhism, there's... gasp! Suddenly a lecture at S.O.A.S., the University of London, I said, "Yeah, of course, almost on every idea of hell and the afterlife," and... gasp! people got uncomfortable. And that crowd, in the crowd than any other ethnic group. scholars and students of Buddhism there. taboo? Well, it's because people went through Buddha, the original Buddha, the historical So, "therefore", ignore all of this evidence, and pieces of evidence. Or that people called Herakles to flatter strong, and beat people to death with a club? something that only appears relatively late iconography. Is that original or not? You to never lose sight of your role as a modern never, never let yourself, get into a frame paper in front of you; to never be the person and modern expectations onto ancient texts.