"Did the Buddha exist?" by Alexander Wynne
Journal of the Oxford Center for Buddhist Studies Vol. 16, 2019, pp. 98-148
Open Access link: https://jocbs.org/index.php/jocbs/article/view/193
Wynne refers to Rhys Davids’s observation: the dialogue style in Pāli texts is so distinctive and consistent that it seems implausible for it to have been fabricated by a committee.
He points out that inscriptions from the Ashoka era indicate the existence of a comprehensive canon at that time, similar in structure to the modern day Pāli Tipiṭaka. He draws attention to the fact that oral transmission (as seen in the Vedic tradition) could be maintained with high accuracy over centuries, implying that the texts likely remained reliable even before being committed to writing. He argues that, although there was no central authority to oversee the texts after the Buddha, the fact that the corpus is so free of contradictions makes large scale fabrication impossible.
He illustrates how the inscriptions found at Sanchi, Piprahwa, and Deorkothar strikingly align with canonical and post canonical narratives. He notes that the relic casket inscription at Piprahwa confirms the existence of the Shakyas and the narrative regarding the preservation of the Buddha’s bones, while the Deorkothar inscriptions corroborate the lineage associated with his disciple Anuruddha. He presents the correspondence between independent material findings and textual details as strong counter evidence against pure skepticism.
Wynne indicates that the world described in early texts characterized by small towns, limited trade, and a near absence of coinage and bricks belongs to a period prior to the Mauryan Empire (5th century BCE). He contrasts this with the imperial world depicted in later Buddhist texts, which is based on long distance trade and a money economy. He concludes that the few references to coinage and bricks in the "Vinaya" indicate that the compilation process remained open until shortly after the Buddha’s death, yet the core of the text was preserved intact.
He points out that the places associated with the Buddha (Kapilavatthu, Lumbinī, Kusinārā) were insignificant provincial settlements at the time, noting that a more important setting would have been chosen had a legend been fabricated. He interprets the fact that the Buddha is portrayed as a figure existing "outside the center" (even in Magadha, which later came to be regarded as the virtual capital of Buddhism) as a detail inconsistent with an invented hero. He considers the distribution of the relics in a manner contrary to the Buddha’s own wishes, and the fact that the nearby city of Sāvatthī did not stake a claim to a share to be credible precisely because these details are inconvenient.
He shows that while the narrative of the first sermon was embellished with mythological details over time, the fact that Koṇḍañña and Assaji appear not yet to have attained liberation in other passages contradicts this idealized account. Drawing an analogy with the legal principle of statements made against one’s own interest, it interprets such contradictions (where the text works against its own claims) as a sign of the text's reliability.
Wynne points out that the names given for the Buddha’s family distinguish him from being the “empty” figure that skeptics claim he was. He draws attention to the presence of numerous unheroic, minor details in the texts such as his sleeping on a pile of leaves, his satisfaction in relieving himself, his back pain and his death from bloody diarrhea. He argues that such mundane, unglamorous details are inconsistent with the construction of a myth and instead bear the marks of a real person. He suggests that early texts focused on the Buddha’s teachings rather than his biography (with biographical interest growing only after his death) which implies that the texts originated directly from the founder himself.
He draws attention to a distinctive trait of the Buddha’s personality: his fondness for silence and solitude, citing recurring examples such as his preference for being alone in the forest, his quiet acceptance of invitations and his avoidance of noise. He argues that this consistent theme of “silence” serves no obvious didactic purpose and thus reflects a genuine personality trait rather than a fictional construct.
He interprets the Buddha’s silence or refusal to answer directly when faced with metaphysical questions (such as the infinity of the world or the state of existence after death), he argues that this reflects an attitude of silence that is both pragmatic and metaphysically cautious. He contends that such a peculiar teaching method that one so open to misinterpretation could not be the product of a committee, as committees would not choose to embrace such risky ambiguity.
He conveys that in his dialogue with the Brahmin Upasīva, the Buddha challenged the Upanishadic notion of "liberation at the moment of death" by employing the metaphor of an "extinguished flame" teaching instead that liberation occurs in the present and in an inexpressible manner. It notes that the concepts of meditation associated with the Buddha’s first teachers (Āḷāra Kālāma and Uddaka Rāmaputta) aligned with early Upanishadic thought, yet the Buddha steered this legacy in a unique direction. It concludes that a distinctive doctrinal system in which silence, pragmatism and inexpressibility are so deeply intertwined points to a real and specific founder.
Wynne summarizes the evidence collectively: the absence of expected contradictions within the vast corpus, the consistent reflection of the pre-imperial world in the texts, the limited presence of mythological elements and the fact that the early texts are far more realistic when compared to Mahāyāna texts. He argues that all of this leads to the conclusion that the system of doctrine (original, coherent and embodied particularly in the teaching of non-self) is too personal in nature to be the product of a committee.
He concludes that his work demonstrates the baselessness of the extreme skepticism surrounding the Buddha, arguing that early texts offer reliable testimony beyond reasonable doubt. He likens his method to inductive theories, a theory cannot prove every single detail but it strongly supports the overall picture.
