Re: Michael Wood documentary proves Oral Traditions are a lie

In message <4vFFi.5124$gZ.4333@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Richard Wordingham <jrw0602@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes
"Artie Choke" <news01@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 6, 3:01 pm, Artie Choke <new...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 6, 1:19 pm, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Without the Mahabharata Buddha would have been a nobody. Nobody >would have
> cared about what his said or did.

So which of his forbears figure in the Mahabharata?

While he was on the road, he _was_ a nobody. Nobody knew or cared who
his father was.

Wouldn't his pendulous earlobes have revealed his family's status?

Um. How far would they have stretched by the time he was 29?

(You'd think the spike on his head, gold skin, the mark of a thousand-spoked wheel on each foot, the 40 teeth etc... would make him pretty distinctive, too.)

How plausible is it that the person who first achieved such insight could have been born to a normal family? Didn't it take lifetimes of preparation, and the accumulation of much merit?

So where's your evidence that shows the Mahabharata is "central to
Buddhism"?

It seems odd then that it should be the Ramayana, not the Mahabharata, that was especially cultivated in SE Asia.

Richard.

--
Richard Herring
.

Quantcast