On the Deification of the Historical Buddha in the

Studies of the Buddhas Life Story

NITTA Tomomichi

Introduction
In criticizing intellectual myopia of those nominalist scholars of Eastern
scriptures to whom such knowledge as is not empirical is meaningless,
Ananda K. Coomaraswamy states that the terms of Scripture and Ritual are
symbolic (pratkavat); and merely to submit this self-evident proposition is to
say that the symbol is not its own meaning but is significant of its referent.1
Of course, scriptures and rituals may include literal or superficial meanings,
but needless to say, if we want to know their real significance, trying to understand their referent is much more important than merely grasping them
at a literal superficial level.2
There are two important points by which the use of symbolism in traditional religions is distinguished from mere metaphor or other figures of
speech in literary use. The first is that the relationship between a symbol and
its referent is hierarchical.3 In other words, a symbol always refers to something higher than itself. That is why Ren Gunon emphasizes that the lower
can symbolize the higher, but the inverse is impossible.4 Therefore, when
considered from the standpoint of the human, we can say that symbols help
us to rise up to a higher level of reality.
The second point, which is deeply related to the first, is that forms of
symbols, whether verbal or visual, are not something arbitrarily created or
1

Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, Manas, Coomaraswamy: Metaphysics, ed. Roger

Lipsy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977), p. 217.
2
Coomaraswamy reminds us of the classic exegetical classification of possible
meanings of scriptures into four levels, i.e., literal, moral, allegorical and anagogic,
ibid., p. 217, n. 18.
3
Symbolism is a language and a precise form of thought; a hieratic and a
metaphysical language and not a language determined by somatic or psychological
categories. Its foundation is in the analogical correspondence of all orders of reality
and states of being or levels of reference. A. K. Coomaraswamy, The Nature of
Buddhist Art, The Door in the Sky: Coomaraswamy on Myth and Meaning
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997), p. 170.
4
Ren Gunon, Fundamental Symbols: The Universal Language of Sacred Science,
comp. and ed. by Michel Vlsan, tr. by Alvin Moore, Jr. (Cambridge: Quinta Essentia,
1995), p. 15.

43

Hrin 15/2008

invented by human beings. As mentioned above, symbols can lead man to

higher realities, and this is possible because forms of symbols by necessity
correspond to the realities which they refer to. After considering symbolism
from the human standpoint, Gunon goes on to discuss the problem from the
side of the Divine. He argues that, if one follows the expressions in the Christian Bible, especially Genesis and the Gospel of John, the fundamental principle of symbolism is derived from the truth that the creation of the world is
based on the word of God, or Logos, and therefore, all symbols, including
human language, are not arbitrary expressions. 5 Coomaraswamy reinforces
the point:
The traditional symbols, in other words, are not conventional but
given with the ideas to which they correspond; one makes, accordingly,
a distinction between le symbolisme qui sait and le symbolisme qui cherche,
the former being the universal language of tradition, and the latter that of
the individual and self-expressive poets who are sometimes called Symbolists.6
Above all, according to Coomaraswamy, myth, like a revelation, is not a
poetic invention but penultimate truth, of which all experience is the temporal reflection.7
The life story of the Buddha is full of mythical and miraculous tales.
However, although there have been a few scholars, such as mile Senart,
Hendrik Kern and Coomaraswamy, who attempted to reveal their symbolical
significance,8 the primary method adopted in modern researches on the Buddhas life story has been the historical reductionist approachnamely,
those readers of the Buddhas life story have generally presupposed that the
Buddha is a man subsequently deified by the adherents, and they have tried
to find and extract historical facts about the Buddha by eliminating all
mythical and miraculous elements from the story. Of course, we might be
able to bring some historical facts to light through such efforts, but as a result,
the greater part of the story would be thrown away. Coomaraswamy, thus,
points out that:
an all-too-common error is to suppose that the true or original form of
a given story can be reconstructed by an elimination of its miraculous and
supposedly fanciful or poetic elements. It is, however, precisely in

Ren Gunon, ibid., pp. 1415.

A. K. Coomaraswamy, Literary Symbolism, The Door in the Sky, p. 185.
7
A. K. Coomaraswamy, Hinduism and Buddhism (New York: The Wisdom Library,
1943), p. 6. He also states that the myth is always true (or else is no true myth), while
the facts are only true eventfully. The Door in the Sky, p. 188.
8
As representatives of this kind of research, we can mention: mile Senart, Essai sur
la lgende du Buddha: son caractre et ses origines (Paris: Sosit Asiatique, 1882);
Hendrik Kern, Geschiedenis van het Buddhisme in Indi (Haarlem: H. D. Tjeenk
Willink, 1882-84), and Coomaraswamy, Hinduism and Buddhism.
6

44

NITTA Tomomichi: On the Deification of the Historical Buddha

these marvels, for example in the miracles of Scripture, that the deepest
truths of the legend inhere; philosophy, as Platowhom Aristotle followed
in this respectaffirms, beginning in wonder.9
In the light of these insightful observations of Coomaraswamy and Gunon,
the present paper intends to discuss the problematic points of the historical
reductionist approach to the Buddhas life story. First, we will review the
recent criticism of that approach by several scholars of Buddhism. Second,
we will discuss some of the essential problems that are involved in the idea of
the apotheosis of the historical Buddha which is presupposed in the historical reductionist approach to the Buddhas life story.

Recent Criticism on the Historical Reductionist Approach in

the Studies of the Buddhas Life Story
As already mentioned, the main method of studying the legend of the Buddha
has been the demythologizing, or historical reductionist approach: by
attempting to remove the mythical elements from this legend, scholars have
tried to reveal the true historical image of the Buddha. The earliest of these
scholars include Herman Oldenberg and T. W. Rhys Davids.10 After them,
many scholars have elaborated and expanded their arguments modifying their
methods and criteria of demythologization in one way or another.11
9

Coomaraswamy, The Door in the Sky, p. 186.

Hermann Oldenberg, Buddha, sein Leben, sein Lehre, sein Gemeinde (Berlin:
Hertz, 1881); and Thomas William Rhys Davids, Buddhism: Being a Sketch of the
Life and Teachings of Gautama the Buddha (London: Society for Promoting Christian
Knowledge, 1877; reprint of the revised edition, 1912).
11
As other representatives of this kind of research, we can mention: Hermann Beckh,
Buddhismus: Buddha und Seine Lehre (Berlin and Leipzig: G.J. Gschen, 1916);
Edward J. Thomas, The Life of Buddha as Legend and History (first 1927, reprint
Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1993); Ui Hakuju , Indo tetsugaku kenky
 vol. 4 (Tky: Kshisha Shob, 1927); Alfred Foucher, La vie du
Bouddha: daprs les textes et les monuments de lInde (Paris: Payot, 1949);
Nakamura Hajime , Gotama budda: Shakuson no shgai: Genshi bukky I
I and II, Nakamura Hajime sensh
10

, vols. 11 and 12 (Tky: Shunj Sha, [1958] 1992); Andr Bareau,

Recherches sur la biographie du Buddha dans les Strapiaka et les Vinayapiaka

anciens, Tome I, De la qute de lveil a la conversion de riputra et de
Maudgalyyana (Paris: cole Franaise Dextrme-orient, 1963), and Tome II, Les
derniers mois, le parnirva et les funrailles (Paris: cole Franaise Dextrmeorient, 1971); Masutani Fumio , Budda no denki: Shiry no kenky!
: , Masutani Fumio chosaku sh , vol. 5, and Budda
no denki: Butsuden no kokoromi ;! , Masutani Fumio
chosaku sh, vol. 6 (Tky: Kadokawa Shoten, 1981); Namikawa Takayoshi -

45

Hrin 15/2008

However, since the late twentieth century, thanks to the emergent historians of religion and comparative mythologists, such as Mircea Eliade and
Joseph Campbell, who began to focus on and explore the internal meanings
of myths themselves, the significance of mythology has in some way come to
be seen in its own right. In addition, the recent trends in contemporary
thought, which are represented by post-modernism and post-colonialism,
have led many to question the validity of the conventional methods of research on myth, i.e., the historical, naturalistic, and sociological reductionist approaches.12 Perhaps, under the influence of such a shift in the trends of
contemporary thought at large and the study of mythology in particular, the
historical reductionist research on the legend of the Buddha has been criticized by several scholars in recent years. For example, Peter Masefield (1986)
says:
Until now Buddhism has tended, consciously or otherwise, to suffer demythologization at the hands of those ignorant of its mythology including, it
may be added, some scholars in the East aping the bad habits of the West,
so much so that the time has surely come when the texts should be seen in
their own terms. If the Buddhism of ancient India is to be understood it
will have to be remythologised in the sense that there will have to be restored to its technical and metaphorical language all the nuances and associations its terms once had for those who heard them.13
Moreover, Reginald Ray (1994) interprets the Buddhas legend as a narrative
which shows the paradigm of saints, and introduces us to the story as the
paradigm as he finds it in the Buddhacarita of Avaghoa. There, he expresses that:
It may be suggested here that in approaching Buddha kyamuni, it is
invalid and finally impossible to separate, as some have tried to do, the
Gotama Buddha k ( Tky: Daiz Shuppan, 2005).
12
In such a shift in the general trends of thought in the learned world in the latter half
of the last century, we can undoubtedly find some signs favorable to the restoration of
the traditional understanding of myths. However, this new current also contains the
danger of becoming an anti-traditional movement. Although I cannot elaborate on this
point here, one of the dangerous factors inherent in this line of thought is its
relativizing tendency. To get a vantage point to relativize both the modern
Western and all other traditional cultures altogetheras this trend of thought
generally inclinessignifies, on the one hand, the contradictory attempt of selfrelativization entailing the nonsensical notion of the absolute relative, and on the
other hand, to assume unwarrantedly something resembling the transcendental
universalism without accepting its genuine authority, that is the eternal metaphysical
Truth (Sophia Perennis). Nitta Tomomichi, Some Reflections on Oriental Studies,
Towards Metanoia: Essays Presented to A. K. Saran on his Eightieth Birthday
(Lucknow, India: Coomaraswamy Center, 2002), p. 143.
13
Peter Masefield, Divine Revelation in Pali Buddhism (Colombo: The Sri Lanka
Institution of Traditional Studies, 1986), p. xvi.

46

NITTA Tomomichi: On the Deification of the Historical Buddha

man from the myth. Western and modernist notions of a demythologized

individuality standing apart from and independent of symbol, cult, and
legend have no relevance for the early Buddhist case. Gautama, in his own
time and in subsequent times, was able to be the Buddha precisely because
he was understood to embody, in an unprecedented way, the cosmic and
transcendent.14
Continuing, he mentions that we arrive at the seemingly ironic position of
affirming that we likely come closest to the historical Buddha precisely when
we take the legendary and cultic idiom of his hagiographical tradition most
seriously.15
Rupert Gethin (1998) also, criticizing the historical reductionist way of
research, states:
Of course, as the Buddhist tradition tells it, the story of the life of the Buddha is not history nor meant to be. The whole story takes on a mythic and
legendary character. A wealth of detail is brought in capable of being read
metaphorically, allegorically, typologically, and symbolically. Much of this
detail is to modern sensibilities of a decidedly miraculous and supernatural kind. The story of the Buddhas life becomes not an account of the
particular and individual circumstances of a man who, some 2,500 years
ago, left home to become a wandering ascetic, but something universal, as
archetype; it is the story of all those who have become buddhas in the past
and all who will become buddhas in the future, and, in a sense, of all who
follow the Buddhist path. If we persist in distinguishing and holding
apart myth and history, we are in danger of missing the storys own sense
of truth. Furthermore, the historian must recognize that he has virtually no
strictly historical criteria for distinguishing between history and myth in
the accounts of the life of the Buddha.16
In addition, Paul Williams (2000), presenting a skeptical view on the outcome
of Bareaus research (1963-71), expresses that the legend of the Buddha
should be understood as a hagiography. Furthermore, he states that the
Buddhas hagiography should be read as an illustration of what is to Buddhists important and the whole story of the Buddha exemplifies what Buddhism is all about.17
John Strong (2001) also points out that the historical description of the
Buddha as demonstrated by modern scholars is different from the way Buddhists tell the story of the Buddha, and concerning this mythical narrative,
14

Reginald A. Ray, Buddhist Saints in India: A Study in Buddhist Values and

Orientations (New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), pp. 44-78, cf. p. 62.
15
Ibid.
16
Rupert Gethin, The Foundations of Buddhism (Oxford, New York: Oxford
University Press, 1998), p. 16.
17
Paul Williams and Anthony Tribe, Buddhist Thought: A Complete Introduction to
the Indian Thought (London, New York: Routledge, 2000), pp. 21-30.

47

Hrin 15/2008

states:
These narrations may contain fictions about the Buddhalegends and
traditions that have accrued around himbut these fictions are in many
ways truer, or at least religiously more meaningful, than the facts.18
Apart from this, he considers the story of the Buddha to be a biographical
blueprint which all Buddhas follow.19
There are several scholars in Japan too, who have made similar assertions.
For example, Akira Hirakawa (1968) argues that it is impossible to reproduce a pure life story of the Buddha as a human being at present because all
the events concerning him are colored with mythical characters,20 and states:
The ancient followers of Buddhism never imagined a life story of the Buddha as a human being, because what was important for them was not
kyamuni as a human being, but kyamuni as the Buddha, and therefore
their concern was how he attained Buddhahood.21
Moreover, Kichi Hokazono (1994), criticizing the historical reductionist
approach of both Oldenberg (1881) and Nakamura (1958), states that the
life story [of the Buddha] which is obtained by such [an approach] is nothing
but meager traces and what is possible [for such an approach] is only to
choose seemingly historical facts [from the life of the Buddha] from a relative point of view and to bring his image as close as possible to that of a
human being.22 Further, Hokazono states that the most significant aspect of
the mythical legend in the Buddhas life story is to express the concept of
Buddha.23
Masahiro Shimoda, a noted Japanese scholar, also questions the historycentrism in modern Buddhist philology. Relying on the research carried out
by Roger-Pol Droit and Philip Almond, he points out that the image of the
Buddha as a noble philosopher and moralist, which was created in the
Buddhist Studies of nineteenth-century Europe, is not, in fact, based on either
philological or historical evidence, but produced by the European scholars at
that time attaching their ideal image of a human being to the Buddha. Therefore, Shimoda makes the criticism that Oldenberg and Rhys Davids just
presupposed the existence of the historical Buddha a priori, and they did not
demonstrate this based on any existing Buddhist text. Also, Shimoda indicates the risks involved in reconstructing the image of the historical Bud18

John S. Strong, The Buddha: A Short Biography (Oxford: Oneworld, 2001), p. 2.

John S. Strong, Relics of the Buddha (Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University
Press, 2004), p 6.
20
Hirakawa Akira , Shoki daij bukky no kenky
(Tky: Shunj Sha, 1968), p. 160, n. 1.
21
Ibid., p. 160.
22
Hokazono Kichi , Raritabisutara no kenky jkan
! (Tky: Dait Shuppan Sha, 1994), p. 15.
23
Ibid., p. 21.
19

48

NITTA Tomomichi: On the Deification of the Historical Buddha

dha. According to his position, the reader of the texts who attempts to extract
historicity from them, would discard all other elements even though they
might include a much richer content than the historical facts themselves, or
suggest some complex and difficult doctrines concerning the Buddha. In
other words, from the viewpoint of the historical Buddha, the reader is
not actually reading but tampering with the texts so as to make them comprehensible for himself alone. Moreover, in that case, he will be unable to understand the Buddha as he is from the texts because he will presuppose that
the Buddha who is beyond historicity is not, in fact, the Buddha. In brief, the
investigation of the historical Buddha is completely different from the
question What is the Buddha? and the person who pursues this will never
be able to discover, but instead actually diminish, the significance of the
Buddha.24
In this way, this historical reductionist approach, mentioned above, has
recently come under criticism by many scholars. We can recognize two points
which all of these criticisms have in common. First, many of them argue that
it is utterly impossible to extract the historical facts from the legend of the
Buddha. No matter what criterion is provided in that operation, its results will
never be anything more than plausible historical fact based on deduction.
Secondly, even if we could exclude the mythical elements from the Buddhas
life, what remains is insignificant, i.e., such a way of reading the legend of
the Buddha could never reveal the primary significance of that story.

On the Apotheosis of the Human Buddha

The historical reductionist approach to the legend of the Buddha has one
more difficulty which has scarcely been pointed out even in the criticism of
that approach described above, namely the idea that Gotama was originally
a human being but was subsequently deified. 25 Needless to say, the
24

Shimoda Masahiro , Monogatarareru budda no hukkatsu: Rekishigaku

toshite no bukky gakuo saik suru ;!
, Bukk to jaina ky: Nagasaki Hjun hakase kokikinen ronsh
;! (Kyto: Heirakuji Shoten, 2005), pp.
368-374.
25
It is important to distinguish between two kinds of deity before examining the
concept of deification or apotheosis. One is absolute God, the other is relative
gods, who often appear in Buddhist scriptures as well, and according to the Buddhist
way of explanation, though they are beyond human beings, they also belong to the
three worlds (triloka) and are still subject to reincarnation. And what is meant by
the word deity when it is related to deification here, is of the former sense. This is
because in Buddhist literature, the Buddha is obviously depicted as an absolute
Being, who has transcended reincarnation and gone beyond gods. Also, as such a
Being, many kinds of miraculous and superhuman attributes are bestowed upon him.
By the way, we cannot actually say that there is no understanding of what can be

49

Hrin 15/2008

historical reductionist approach presumes this, and it is still widely shared

among many scholars, at least in Japan. However, concerning this idea of
deification or apotheosis, Shimoda states that:
You will find that the idea that the Buddha was subsequently deified,
which is held by modern Buddhist scholars, is not based on definite historical facts. The notion of deification has never existed, at least not in
the world of Indian Buddhism.26
Actually, scholars who stubbornly continue to insist on the apotheosis of
the Buddha cannot demonstrate it based on historical evidence.27 Therefore, it
must be said that this idea was not something derived from philological examination but a sociological bias peculiar to the modern world. Now, let us
examine two aspects of the misconceptions which are included in this notion.
The first problem is that there is a unbridgeable gap between the two following perceptions: Even though he was extremely great, Gotama was only
a human being, and, He was a superhuman and had absolute existence like
called deification within a tradition. For example, among the Early Christian
Fathers such as Athanasius, the understanding that God became a man in order that
men become God was generally accepted. See Oliver Clment, The Roots of
Christian Mysticism: Texts from the Patristic Era with Commentary, tr. by Theodore
Berkely, O.C.S.O., and Jeremy Hummerstone (New York: New City Press, 1993), pp.
263-269). In this sense, the deification of man represents the mystery where the
absolute gap between sinful man and God is bridged by Gods grace. And, though
being quite different from the Christian example, in the sense of relative deities,
Japanese Shinto sometimes deifies great historical persons after their death.
However, it must be kept in mind that, when the apotheosis of the historical Buddha
is asserted in Buddhist Studies, being different from the two examples mentioned
above, it does not demonstrate a belief or an understanding which is actually shared
within a particular tradition, but is used as a label by external observers to a
hypothetical change in the history of the traditional understandings concerning the
Buddha.
26
Shimoda Masahiro , Budda to shinri: Budda no shinkakuka o toinaosu
;!, NHK supesharu: Budda ooinaru
tabiji, 1, NHK ;!!, 1 (Tky: Nihon Hs Shuppan
Kykai, 1998), p. 174.
27
Such uncertainty in the case of the apotheosis theory can be found in, for
example, Endo Toshiichi, Buddha in Theravada Buddhism: A Study of the Concept of
Buddha in the Pali Commentaries (Dehiwela, Sri Lanka: Buddhist Cultural Center,
1997), p. 11, and An Yang-Gyu, Buddhaghosas View of the Buddhas Lifespan,
Bukky kenky 29 (2000), pp. 129-147, see especially p. 130. They both
state that the Buddha was apotheosized at a later date but it is hardly possible to say
when this took place. Perhaps this is not because of the obscurity of ancient Indian
history, but rather of the questionability of the apotheosis theory itself. Edward J.
Thomas, The Life of Buddha as Legend and History, p. 211, points out that it is
dangerous to regard the mythical and miraculous descriptions in the Buddhist
scriptures as something new without qualification. However, in most cases, this
apotheosis theory is based on such a bias, which is criticized by Thomas.

50

NITTA Tomomichi: On the Deification of the Historical Buddha

God. Therefore, if a person or a community that had the former understanding one day all of a sudden changed to the latter, such a shift is certainly not a
gradual one which can be called progress or development of understanding, but a gigantic leap, something like a total mutation. Therefore, it is
difficult to image that, from a Buddhist community in which the former understanding of the Buddha was shared, a person or a group that held the latter
view could suddenly appear.
Let us now examine this problem in greater detail. First of all, it seems
impossible that all members of a Buddhist community could suddenly change
their understanding concerning the Buddha, as it were, overnight. If the apotheosis of Gotama actually occurred, perhaps this might have happened
some time after the Buddha had passed away, when monks in a particular
community who had held the former interpretation, started to agree with the
latter opinion. This explanation is plausible, especially as it corresponds to
the historical fact that the early Buddhist community split into many sects.
However, if that were the case, a sect that held the understanding that the
Buddha was just a human being would have naturally continued to exist.
Perhaps the scholars who support the apotheosis theory would insist that
that sect was the Theravda. This is a sect generally regarded as the most
conservative, and actually, is often seen as having quite a realistic and humanistic perception concerning the Buddha when compared to the
Mahsaghika, whose understanding is rather transcendental, mythical and
similar to the Mahyna.28 However, as Ray (1994) has indicated when comparing the Suttanipta with the Buddhacarita, the image of the Buddha which
is depicted in early Theravda sutras is already of a mythical superhuman, not
fundamentally different from that of the Mahyna literature.29 It is even so
in the case of the image of the Buddha as described in late-Theravda literature, such as the Jtaka and the Buddhavasa. Is it possible, therefore, that
such scriptures have been maintained by people who regard the Buddha as
just a historical human being? Or can we dispose of this problem as a matter
of degree by explaining that basically the Theravdins understood the Buddha as a human being, but even they could not help but apotheosize him more
or less?
Of course, I do not wish to deny the historical actuality of Gotama
Buddha by arguing this, nor do I want to object to the fact that the birth of the
stras has a history, and that the Buddhist doctrines have developed
28

Such a view can be seen in, for example, Mochizuki Shinry , Indo ni
okeru buddakan no hattatsu , Tetsugaku zasshi
613 (1927), pp. 1-9; Kimura Taiken , Shj bukky shis ron
(Tky: Meiji Shoin, 1937), pp. 62 and 89-92; Nalinaksha Dutt, Mahayana
Buddhism (New Delhi: Rakesh Press, corrected reprint, 1976), pp. 141-177; ibid.,
Buddhist Sects in India (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1978), pp. 98-100; tienne
Lamotte, Histoire du Bouddhisme Indien: Des origines lre aka (Louvain:
Bibliothque du Muson, 1958), pp. 713-718.
29
Reginald A. Ray, Buddhist Saints in India, p. 62.

51

Hrin 15/2008

according to the period in which they appeared. Though it is not easy to judge
the exact historical position of a particular stra, we are able perhaps to say
that, in general, the earlier stras have more simplicity than later ones. Moreover, according to the age, a difference of understanding on a certain matter
must have become clearer in the Buddhist community, which eventually
caused a split within the sects.
However, on the other hand, if one community or sect had maintained historical continuity, there must have been consistent understandings over time
concerning doctrines. Even if a new term or a way of expression were born
within such a group at a certain time, it must have had some kind of consistency with a former understanding. In other words, such a new term or expression needed to be created because it became necessary to articulate such
understandings, which had already existed, within a new context due to some
epochal factor.
The second problem is that this concept of the apotheosis of Gotama itself includes a fundamental contradiction, and it is logically absurd from the
beginning. When we say that something has changed into X, we rightly
presume that the X was non-X before the actual change. This logic, X has
changed into non-X, does not cause a problem a priori when it is applied to
relative matters. However, when it is assigned to an absolute or eternal being,
this logic a priori becomes contradictory because, in that situation, X was
(or could be) non-X immediately signifies the denial of the absoluteness or
the eternity of X. If such a logical contradiction is accepted in a particular
tradition as the heart of that religion as in the aforementioned Christian
case,30 then it is totally another matter. However, if such a view is presented
as a historical explanation by an external observer to the internal understandings of Buddhism (that is, by a researcher who insists on the apotheosis of
Gotama), it virtually signifies a denial of the internal understandings of that
particular tradition itself. In other words, saying that Gotama Buddha was
subsequently absolutized and eternalized is the same as saying that Buddhism merely absolutizes and eternalizes what was originally not, which, in
turn, is just the same as saying that Buddhism is false.
When we start thinking like that, then it must be said that the idea, namely
Gotama Buddha was originally a human being but subsequently was deified is not based on philological evidence, but is due to a bias, which developed in nineteenthcentury Europe and remains as an unquestioned supposition in Buddhist Studies today. Normally in philological studies, we seek to
exclude such prejudices as much as possible and discuss only what is based
on evidence obtained from literature. However, the idea of the apotheosis of
Gotama Buddha has been an unconditional preoccupation in the mainstream
study of the Buddhas legend up to now.

30

See note 25 in this article.

52

NITTA Tomomichi: On the Deification of the Historical Buddha

Conclusion
Though the Buddhas life story might include several historical facts, we
do not have any certain method of extracting them, and it is obvious that
describing such facts is not the subject of the story. Moreover, it has become clear that the idea of the apotheosis of the human Buddha, which is
presupposed in the reductionistic approach, is absurd. If we wish to understand the real significance of the mythical story of the Buddha, we have to try
to read the texts in themselves. We need further discussion concerning the
concrete method for this process, but perhaps a comparison to the myths of
Hinduism and Brahmanism, which has already been attempted by such
scholars as Senart, Kern and Coomaraswamy, would be useful, and moreover,
we should make use of the traditional commentaries that have been passed
down in the Theravda tradition as well as other methods of studying myth.

53