Freethought Nation

The "crucifixion" of Buddha?

I would like to add that Lindtner is one of the most cited modern scholars I've ever come across in my research using Google books. He began asking me years ago to present papers at his conferences - indeed, he is one of the only scholars of this caliber to have the courage to jump into this field with both feet and make such a challenge. I'm calling it "Lindtner's Challenge."

In my "Origins" article, I quote Lindtner concerning the purported crucifixion of Buddha:


I next remark:

Concerning this purported "crucifixion" of Buddha, related in, among others, a Buddhist text dating to the first century BCE - the Samghabhedavastu/Mahâparinirvâna sutra - Ken Humphreys states:


In a footnote, I say, "In private correspondence, Dr. Lindtner informed me that there were three sources for the crucifixion story of Buddha: the Lotus sutra, the Mahaparinirvana sutra and the Samghabhedavastu, of which the MPS is a part."

Lindtner has further commented about this issue, which has evidently created some furor elsewhere.


The MSV refers to the Mûlasarvâstivâdavinaya, which has been published in the following text:

The Gilgit Manuscript

According to Lindtner, this text has never been translated into English. A "recension" is "an editorial revision of a literary work, esp. on the basis of critical examination of the text and the sources used." So, Lindtner is saying here that only in the MSV recension of the MPS is the above crucifixion episode mentioned.

Lindtner also stated the following:

Again, he remarks:


And finally, Lindtner states:

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Can somebody please provide me with an email address or postal address for Christian Lindtner. I have a couple of questions I need to ask him directly regarding his research.

Thanks in advance!
Ryan

The "crucifixion" of Buddha?

Someone has sent me an email about this Buddha-crucifixion issue, which I forwarded to Dr. Lindtner. The individual asking the questions and making derogatory comments about Lindtner's work appears to have no credentials whatsoever, apparently is not an expert in the pertinent ancient languages, and cannot read the relevant chapter in Lindtner's German book. Yet, he feels he can critique Dr. Lindtner's work, which is the result of some 30 years of being a Buddhist and Sanskrit scholar. This individual actually claims that Lindtner is "mistaken" while the critic, obviously, feels he himself is correct, evidently based on some internet searching and Wikipedia reading. A case of proving the old adage, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

Here is the original email:


The commentary concerning the MPS not containing the episode has already been addressed, as, according to Lindtner, it is the MSV recension of the MPS that does contain the IMPALEMENT PART of the episode. I have also linked above to the relevant manuscript containing the MSV in Sanskrit.

Following is Dr. Lindtner's response. It is quite clear that his critic does not know what he is talking about, does not understand the word "recension" and is not competent to read Lindtner's original German analysis, apparently, since I am told that he has been referred on a number of occasions to Lindtner's book, Geheimnisse um Jesus Christus, which contains a 10-page chapter on this very subject. Dr. Lindtner really has a great deal of patience and forbearance, as we can see from his response to these derogatory remarks from a non-expert.


Christian's credentials can be found here:

CV and Bibliography for Christian Lindtner, Denmark

I do not know if he has any contact information on his website, but I am not at liberty to give out his or anyone else's email address.

I should add that I am told there was no "wager" on the part of the individual who forwarded me this message, but that this critic simply made an offer of a "reward" to the original poster and then attempted to make it into an agreed-upon bet. In any event, it was never claimed that Lindtner made such a contention, so this "wager" was based on a falsehood to begin with. And again, there evidently was no such "bet," but we can see the typical sort of manipulation by critics. It is also a wonder why they are so hostile and aggressive when encountering such fascinating information. Indeed, this debate implies that Dr. Lindtner made up the episode out of whole cloth, an egregious accusation to say the least.

[Note: Based on Lindtner's distinctions regarding the three texts containing the complete episode, I have added the language "IMPALEMENT PART" in the above sentence concerning the MSV recension. As the title of this post indicates, what I have been concerned with here is the crucixifion/impalement of the figure in question, which is what I was terming "the episode."]

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

The "crucifixion" of Buddha?

Because of the confusion, I have added some clarifying language to my "Origins" article.

In the footnote where Lindtner says, "It was king Gautama—not Jesus—who was crucified," I have added:


In the next paragraph, I said:


While the latter paragraph can be found on Humphreys's site, the source is Dr. Zacharias P. Thundy, another scholar who reads Sanskrit and whose comments can be found on Lindtner's site in an essay entitled, "The Sanskrit Sources of the Gospel Narratives of the Trial and Death."

In this regard, I have corrected the paragraph to reflect that the quote is from Professor Thundy, and I have added the following footnote to the contention that the crucifixion/impalement is in the Samghabhedavastu/Mahâparinirvâna sutra:


The specifics, while interesting for scholars, do not negate the fact that, according to these two scholars, there is a crucifixion/impalement scene in a Buddhist text that pre-dates the common era.

As we can also see, I have not related anything inaccurately in my "Origins" article regarding this issue, apart from the fact that Humphreys was quoting Thundy, which is unclear from his site. It is Dr. Thundy who specifically names the text in question as, the "Sangabhedavastu of the Mahaparinirvanasutra."

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Dear S. Acharya,

Would you please be kind enough to forward the following two questions to Christian Lindtner.

Question #1
Is there ANY version of the Mahaparinirvana-sutra that contains a narrative about somebody being crucified/impaled ?

Question #2
If so, was the person who was crucified/impaled supposed to be a Buddha?


I am not at all hostile to the notion that Jesus (or Buddha for that matter) is a mythical figure. Nor do I see myself as being critical of Christian Lindtner's work.

I explained that because they share a nearly identical title and a common topic, that he may have assumed that the Mahaparinirvana-sutra and the Mahaparinibbana-sutta are the same text. I based this on the fact that he seems to refer to a Pali version of the Mahaparinirvana-sutra:



IMHO that hardly constitutes "making derogatory comments about Lindtner's work"

It was an attempt to explain an apparent discrepancy (referring to a Pali version of the Mahaparinirvana-sutra) which might also explain why his dating of the text matches more closely what many scholars see as the date of the Pali text.

It is my understanding that Christian Lindtner claims that the Mulasarvastivadavinaya contains both an impalement narrative and that it also contains a recension of the Mahaparinirvana-sutra.

He does say that there are some elements (possibly he is referring to the "last supper") from the Mahaparinirvanasutra that have parallels in the Christian account.

However, it is my understanding that he maintains that the impalement narrative is found in another section of the Mulasarvastivadavinaya.

Indeed, he appears to explicitly deny that the impalement narrative is found in the Mahaparinirvanasutra:


Likewise, it is my understanding that the narrative refers to a "Gautama" that is supposed to be an entirely different figure from the Buddha Gautama Sakyamuni.

In fact, the Tibetan version of the story that I am familiar with is quite explicit about the fact that they are supposed to be separate individuals and is also clear that the impaled "Gautama" is not a Buddha of any sort. Rather, he is an ascetic who figures in the early mythic history of the Sakyas.




That is untrue. It was always a bet. It was never a reward.

This is what the post said:


I hope we can keep the discussion here civil. I have no intention of attacking anyone's work, nor in insulting anyone. I just want to get the two specific questions above answered in an unequivocal way by Christian Lindtner.

Warm Regards,
Ryan

I want to make it very very clear that I don't dispute this.

What I want to hear specifically from Christian Lindtner is not whether some elements of one type or another from the mahaparinirvana-sutra have parallels with the Christian "trial" account or "last supper" etc. Nor am I interested in whether some scripture other than the Mahaparinirvana-sutra has an impalement narrative.

My interest begins and ends with the below two questions (which I again humbly request you forward "as is" to Christian Lindtner)

Question #1
Is there ANY version of the Mahaparinirvana-sutra that contains a narrative about somebody being crucified/impaled ?

Question #2
If so, was the person who was crucified/impaled supposed to be a Buddha?

Thank you,
Ryan

The "crucifixion" of Buddha?

I asked Christian to read this thread, and his response was, in part:


Obviously, the translation of his chapter into English would be helpful, because it clarifies these distinctions. As I related in my "Origins" article, he had stated that the episode in its entirety, as it was eventually rehashed in the gospel account, could be found in three different texts, with the actual impalement part in the MSV. I repeated his remarks accurately.

The bottom line, again, is that there is a crucifixion/impalement scene in pre-Christian Buddhist texts that, according to Lindtner, was evidently rehashed in the gospel story. That's been the whole point all along. The debate over the details is a needless distraction from that important issue. And the heckling and scoffing over this accurately related contention was likewise utterly needless and uncalled for.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Notice that he said it is in the MSV (which is exactly what I've said above) but doesn't say the impalement narrative is in the MPS (because it isn't, the impalement of the ascetic Gautama in in an entirely different portion of the MSV).

Christian Lindtner's email to me quoted in full

Re: Some context for the questions: Reply to Ryan from DK
Friday, December 4, 2009 10:37 AM
From: "lindtner@xxx.com" <lindtner@xxx.com>
To: thecontemplative@xxx.com

Hello Ryan Parker,

Thanks for your mail!

I find that we all agree that the MPS - as part of the MSV recension - does not contain the whole crucifixion/impalement episode. (emphasis added by RP)
The NT crucifixion episode is made up by combining at least three different Buddhist sources (+ bits from OT) , as I have already pointed out.

The episode with the two crucified malefactors - in Luke only - is to be traced back to the MPS. I will publish a note on that very soon (under NEWS, http://www.jesusisbuddha.com

It is quite true, that elements for the Last Supper are also to be found in the MPS. I will also come back to that episode.

As you are aware - I am glad you read Tibetan! - Gautama was a different person, mythical, of course. But he is indispensable to the Sâkyamuni legend, for being the progenitor of Sâkyamuni, the latter would not have existed without Gautama, who was impaled, but just managed, in time, to leave two "eggs"- i.e. two sons etc.

So, we have the familiar image of the KING hanging there, with a human being on each side, on the place of the Skulls.
This myth was probably created to explain why Sâkyamuni also was called Gautama (as he often is, e.g. in MPS).
There are many such examples in Buddhist texts, where famous names of the past are turned into relatives, disciples etc. of Sâkyamuni. All in majorem gloriam Buddhae, of course.

I wish you good luck in tracing NT passages back to the Buddhist originals!

On the whole the Tibetan version of the Sanskrit is very good (as opposed to the Chinse, which is very bad!) Unfortunately, however, nearly all puns are lost in Tibetan, and that makes it impossible to make the identifications.

SO: You MUST learn Sanskrit!

I hope this answers your questions.
Best wishes
Christian Lindtner

Thank you for confirming that my "Origins" article was correct and that I have accurately reflected Dr. Lindtner's position, as he himself has stated.

Note the word "whole." In my "Origins" article, I related that Lindtner had specified there were three sources for the (entire) episode. Above and there, I have emphasized that I was interested in the crucifixion/impalement part, which is in the MSV.

Your derogatory remarks about Dr. Lindtner being "mistaken" and "conflating" were entirely erroneous, obviously, as was your pretense at knowing this subject matter better than he.

At tribe, you repeatedly stated that these texts post-dated Christianity and could in no way have influenced it. You were incorrect, as demonstrated here. Your smugness in this last message will not remove that fact of you being wrong.

In your remarks at tribe, you also said (about me and the original poster), "As far as I am concerned you are both dishonest and ignorant." You have proved yourself to be a fraud, sir.

Had I included Christian's email to me in full, you would have read, among other things, that you had lost your wager.

I repeat that the entire point of my writing was to demonstrate that, according to Lindtner, the Buddhist texts served as the prototype for the gospels.

And that's not all...in other words, it's not the whole thing.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

There is no question about the fact that the impalement narrative is in the MSV. Its a real Buddhist myth. Also Lindtner definitely sees parallels between elements in the MPS and the Christian narratives surrounding the death of the mythical Jesus. My only point was a slightly pedantic one about which narrative belongs to which section of the MSV.

I know for a fact that the narratives are a genuine part of the Mahayana corpus, as I've read them myself.

I do not I question the fact that there are nigh-universal patterns in myths from different religions or that these patterns indicate that the myths are just that: myths.


Say what you want. I've compared the English translation of the Chinese version of the Mahaparinirvana-sutra with the Tibetan text (མྱང་འདས་ཆེན་པོའི་མདོ). It is immediately obvious they are the same text with only occasional differences.

On the other hand, when the Tibetan or Chinese versions of the Mahaparinirvana-sutra are compared to the Mahaparinibbana-sutta, it seems clear that they are different books. They have a nearly identical title and common topic (the death of the Buddha) but that is about as far as the similarity goes.

I invite everyone to open the below two links in separate windows and compare the two texts side by side. Take a look and decide for yourself. It seems self-evident (to me at least) that they are two different books.
http://www.nirvanasutra.net/nirvanasutraa1.htm
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .vaji.html


Sanskrit texts are notoriously difficult to date (in terms of establishing a reliable terminus post quem and terminus ante quem, especially when compared to Tibetan, Chinese or Western compositions). So you are free to argue a pre-Christian dating. However, the large majority of scholars involved in the field of Buddhist Studies are in complete concert regarding the fact that the vast majority of texts in the Mahayana corpus date from the Common Era. This most certainly includes the MPS which most scholars date to after the first centuy CE (but before the third century CE).


That is blatantly untrue. The remark was directed solely at "Rocky". I don't consider you ignorant and have seen no evidence that you are dishonest. My criticism of your work was/is largely limited to what I consider an over-reliance on secondary-sources.


Calling me a fraud won't magically make me wrong.

Here is what I suggest you do if you really think I am wrong: Ask Christian Lindtner to go officially on the record making a statement saying in unambiguously clear language that the episode where Gautama is impaled on the place of skulls is to be found in the Mahaparinirvana-sutra.

If I really am wrong about what I've been saying, that should be a very simple matter for you to accomplish.

Now you may well feel that I am nit-picking about "specifics that are only interesting for scholars" and that they don't much matter to the over-all integrity of your theory. Heck, I might even agree with you. However, I personally think such details are both interesting and worth getting right in all their minutiae.

The ironic thing about this whole affair is that I tend to agree with your primary theory (that the Christ myth is indeed just a myth composed of elements found in earlier mythologies). But if you want to act like I am just some ignorant critic who is spewing knee-jerk reactions to your theory, you can certainly do so. But your theory in its broad strokes is not one I feel any inclination to disagree with, so you'd be barking up the wrong tree.

Frankly this whole debate has taken up too much of my time already, but feel free to keep criticizing me in my absence.

Best Regards,
Ryan

From what I can see, Ryan, you came out swinging about my "Origins" article, making comments about the Buddhism part being reflective of someone who doesn't know the primary sources. I quote you at Tribe:


You were proved to have been utterly wrong in these remarks, yet you refused to acknowledge that fact, although you did eventually state that the texts in question appear to be pre-Christian, based on Lindtner's response.

From this first remark on your part, however, Rocky presented the facts of the matter accurately, but you continued to make the same comments over and over again - and other erroneous contentions, including assuming that Rocky had made inaccurate statements, when in fact he was only quoting from the "Origins" article.

Therefore, after reading those posts at tribe I'd say it certainly looks like you included me in your comment about "both" being "ignorant" and "dishonest." You comment came after this remark by Rocky:


If you did not intend me in that derogatory remark, I stand corrected on that issue, but you were in error from the beginning, so calling Rocky "ignorant" and "dishonest" is egregious.

Moreover, you were essentially ridiculing my work, which Lindtner has backed up, so you owe an apology to me too - the entire fiasco at tribe was completely YOUR CREATION.

You continued with your derogation of my work, which you have obviously never studied and had already made erroneous comments about nevertheless:


Ryan, we certainly can't trust you to get all the facts right.

You then made derogatory remarks about Lindtner being "mistaken" and "conflating" the issues. Now you are backtracking about all that - and I can tell you that, while Lindtner was very polite in responses, he was affronted. His "we are in agreement" was in fact a diplomatic commentary. He ends his remarks to you by saying that you need to learn Sanskrit, which was in effect an apparent backhand for the derogation you threw at him.

Now you are crowing in a fallacious blog, when you were in the wrong from the beginning. The fact is that Rocky consistently and accurately quoted Lindtner and me throughout that thread at tribe. As Rocky accurately points out there:


All in all, it appears you've been arguing just for argument's sake. Neither Lindtner nor I were wrong on these points. However, Ryan, you were wrong or inaccurate on several things throughout that thread at tribe, and you even conceded to some of them. I think it's time for you to just let it go.

When all the dust has settled, the fact will remain that, according to Lindtner and Thundy, there are pre-Christian Buddhist texts in which appears an impalement/crucifixion of an important Buddhist figure and that, also according to Lindtner, these texts were used in the creation of the Christian gospels. These are the salient facts, with the details to be worked out. In my mind, these contentions are some of the most significant in history, and to present them to the public is highly important, despite the personal risks, which from my decades-long experience are many because of unpleasant and arrogant individuals. Even if some of the details are inaccurate, it is very graceless to be throwing rocks and mud at the messengers of this vital message. Such behavior is certainly not a sign of enlightenment or spiritual evolvement, to which some might make pretenses.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Since you didn't address the actual substance of my post HERE, I feel no particular inclination to reply beyond making three brief points:

You have not:
1) Addressed the proof I offered that the Mahaparinirvana-sutra and the Mahaparinibbana-sutta are separate texts.

2) Posted a statement from Christian Lindtner going officially on the record saying in unambiguously clear language that the episode where Gautama is impaled on the place of skulls is to be found in the Mahaparinirvana-sutra. I'm virtually certain you never will be able to post such a statement.

3) Addressed the fact that the "Gautama" impaled in the MSV narrative is not only not the same as the "Buddha Gautama Sakyamuni" but is not even a "Buddha" of any sort whatsoever. Have you even read the narrative in its entirety? I certainly have. How you can say that the narrative describes the "crucifixion" of the Buddha is beyond me.

Also I must correct you:

I stated no such thing. I merely acknowledge that Christian Lindtner says that it is pre-Christian. I continue to side with the almost universal scholarly consensus that the text is decidedly post-Christian.

I doubt I'll be posting here any further (at least not for some time) as I have a number of projects which definitely take precedence. And as you pointed out (and I freely admit) I've been engaging in this debate out of a certain competitive argumentativeness that is intrinsic to my nature, not because the issues are especially important to me. BTW I make no pretense of enlightenment or even particularly wise behavior. I like to debate and argue, but the time has come for me to spend my time more productively.

Thank you for proving my points about your untrustworthiness and argumentativeness.

As to point one, I have never made any claims at all concerning either of these texts, so you are raising a straw man in order to rattle your saber at me. You should take this matter up with Lindtner, since this particular issue is about his work, not mine. If you are so concerned about this matter and are so knowledgeable, you should have no problem approaching him.

Secondly, in yet another straw man you have created on your own, my "Origins" article does not say anywhere that Lindtner speaks of the skulls motif. That quote was originally found at Humphreys's site and then I traced it to Dr. Zacharias P. Thundy, as on Lindtner's site:


I even include the link to that site in my article, which you could easily have confirmed. Here it is again:

"The Sanskrit Sources of the Gospel Narratives of the Trial and Death"

Dr. Thundy is another scholar who can read Sanskrit. Please feel free to contact him, as I'm sure he would be impressed by your expertise in these matters, as well as your professional conduct. But Lindtner did raise up the issue in his emails, which I merely passed along. Again, I suggest you bring it up to him - why do you feel the need to become aggressive with me about compelling him to go on record?

Your bringing up this issue - putting words into my mouth, which you did also repeatedly at tribe with Rocky and now here with me, and attempting to badger me into answering something I did not even contend - reflects your own issues.

As to point three, that one remains to be clarified, and I will be discussing it with Dr. Lindtner, after which I will make any changes necessary. You say here: "Have you even read the narrative in its entirety? I certainly have."

Really? From your remarks at Tribe, you appear never to have even heard of it before you read about it in my "Origins" article. Instead of asking about this fascinating issue in a mature manner, you immediately began heckling and scoffing in an unseemly and derogatory fashion, as if you knew everything. You didn't, but here you are making further pretenses. You have read the MSV recension in question in the original Sanskrit, and you understood it perfectly? I'm impressed.

In any event, you seem not to be able to understand that we are discussing MYTHS here which themselves are often conflated. Nevertheless, in this case it may simply require a brief clarification, such that there was no need at all for all the kneejerk hostility and disrespectful commentary on your part.

And I will reiterate the entire point, which you continue to miss in your attempts at dragging me into an intellectual p***ing contest of your own making. This point is what is of great interest, not the details that you are so hung up that you can't see the forest for the trees. It is shame that you have so little interest in this fascinating development but seem only to be interested in ostentatiously displaying your purported erudition.

I repeat:

When all the dust has settled, the fact will remain that, according to Lindtner and Thundy, there are pre-Christian Buddhist texts in which appears an impalement/crucifixion of an important Buddhist figure and that, also according to Lindtner, these texts were used in the creation of the Christian gospels.


And without any knowledge of the arguments put forth by this renowned Sanskrit scholar, you immediately assumed he was wrong and that you were right, making uncalled for remarks and losing a wager for your hasty assumption. Firstly, even scholarly consensus on such places as Wikipedia puts much of the Mahayana period between 100 BCE and 100 AD/CE. Secondly, as has been stated elsewhere, including in my books, what is defined as "post-Christian" is dependent on the place. There remain places to this day that are "pre-Christian" and have never heard of Christianity. Christianity was not a factor until the second century, so there was plenty of time for certain Mahayana influence on the Christian efforts. I go into great detail about this period in my books, which constitute thousands of pages of research using the most ancient primary sources to the most modern authorities.

As I stated earlier, it is obvious that you are not interested in the actual material but are merely concerned with harassing me personally.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

The way I'm seeing it, contemplative/Ryan, you have been addressed all over the place, and I have yet to see any substance from you at all. The fact that you have been obsessing over an issue that has been consistent here, and by Rocky at tribe, is just really weird. I'd really like to know why you're so obsessed?

Your #1 - Acharya's right, she made no claims at all concerning either of those texts.

Your #2 - She made no such claims. You have put words in Acharya's mouth.

These seem to be precisely the same errors you make over at tribe. Your wager was also based on the same fallaciousness.

contemplative/Ryan, the e-mail response you received from Christian Lindtner said nothing different than what has been provided here. Rocky, at tribe, appears to have been consistent.

The title of your blog: "The final definitive answer to a lengthy debate!"

And then your comment at the top just under the photo: "An email from Christian Lindtner himself settles a very lengthy debate"

You claim in your blog that something has been "answered" and "settled." While in your posts at tribe you claim that you proved Rocky wrong. I just don't see that as the case, as you've proved nobody wrong at all. You have not added or changed anything on this issue or the discussion here. Rather, what you have done is put words into people's mouths in order to create straw man arguments out of it both here and at tribe. You've turned a non-issue into an obsession in a weird way (shakes head in amazement).

It's truly unfortunate that you created your blog on such a fallacious premise based on your own ego trying to save face on a wager that you yourself created, rather than a more honest blog presenting these issues that have been brought to your attention, which you quite clearly never heard before. Of course, you could delete that blog and start a new, more honest blog if you chose to, especially if you're going to add Christian Lindtner's picture in it. I really don't think he'd appreciate that blog the way it is now with his picture in there.

I suppose I can try to appreciate your anal retentiveness of this issue but, it really, really is time for you to move on and let it go, Ryan.

Thanks for dropping by.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube