Myth vs. History

What’s good everyone?

As I was reading Gethin’s, “The Foundations of Buddha,” I came across a particular sentence that caused me to sit and ponder for a moment.  On page 16 it reads, “If we persist on distinguishing between and holding apart myth and history, we are in danger of missing the story’s own sense of truth.”

Most people know the traditional story of Siddhartha Gautama prior to his awakening moment.  He was brought up in a privileged life, barely venturing outside his sacred walls.  Then one fateful day, he discovered the universal suffering of sickness, old age, and death.  Ultimately, leading him to become a wandering aesthetic whose mission was to lead others with his teachings.

However, it appears that historians are questioning this tale’s authenticity.  Did such events of this particular individual really take place?  Or is it just a fabricated story used to attract followers?  Which presents the matter of myth versus fact.

Well, after reading the quote on page 16, I took Gethin’s advice into consideration.  I can see that the validity of this story should not be the central focus but the “story’s own sense of truth.”  Why should you, me, historians, or anyone else dwell on the actuality of his story if we are oblivious to its main point?  We have no right to project our own opinions and our own criteria if it is blocking the understanding of its true content.  This story serves as an “archetype” for the Buddhist path when finding “the way to a profound religious truth.” It is a story for buddhas in the past, who are now, and those aspiring to become one.  We, and along with historians, do not possess the position to classify if Siddhartha’s life is just a fictitious tale or worthy enough to be part of history.

Like Gethin said, “[the historian] should perhaps remain silent and let the story speak for itself.”

You stay classy Emory.