I have seen many Buddhist claiming that Ramayana and Mahābhārata are copied from their Jatakas. Even Wikipedia says that Dashrata Jataka is oldest attested version of Ramayana.
Is there any evidence to prove that Ramayana AND Mahābhārata are nor copied from Buddhism and Are Pre Buddha.
rAmAyaNa & mahAbhArata are mentioned as part of buddha's education in mahabuddhavamsa & lalitavistara sutra :
mahabuddhavamsa 2.1 ch.2 part 5 :
The Prince, a Bodhisatta, demonstrated his skill in archery not only in his last human existence as Prince Siddhattha, but also while he was still in the early stages of Pāramīfulfilment, in his existence as Prince Asadisa. Here follows a brief account of this episode:
While still fulfilling the Perfections, he was born in one of the existences as Prince Asadisa, the eldest son of King Brahmadatta of the City of Vārāṇasī. When he attained the age of sixteen, he proceeded to the University town of Takkasilā where under the worldfamous teacher, Disāpāmokkha, he learned the three Vedas together with the eighteen branches of learning to the highest stage of perfection.
ajalakṣaṇe miśralakṣaṇe kauṭubheśvaralakṣaṇe nirghaṇṭe nigame purāṇe itihāse vede vyākaraṇe nirukte śikṣāyāṃ chandasvinyāṃ yajñakalpe jyotiṣe sāṃkhye yoge kriyākalpe vaiśike vaiśeṣike arthavidyāyāṃ bārhaspatye āmbhirye āsurye mṛgapakṣirute hetuvidyāyāṃ jalayantre madhūcchiṣṭakṛte sūcikarmaṇi vidalakarmaṇi patrachede gandhayuktau - ityevamādyāsu sarvakarmakalāsu laukikādiṣu divyamānuṣyakātikrāntāsu sarvatra bodhisattva eva viśiṣyate sma
analysis of horses, analysis of elephants, analysis of cattle, analysis of goats, analysis of sheep, analysis of dogs, ritual science and its related lexicon, revealed scripture, ancient stories, history, the Vedas, grammar, etymologies, phonetics, metrics and composition, rules for conducting rituals, astrology, the Sāmkhya philosophical system, the Yoga philosophical system, ceremonies, the art of courtesans, the Vaiśeṣika philosophical system, economics, ethics, hydraulics, knowledge of demigods, knowledge of game animals, knowledge of bird sounds, logic, hydromechanics, beeswax crafts, sewing, wickerwork, leaf cutting, and perfume making.
amoghapāśakalparāja, a bauddha tantra, makes reference to rAmAyaNa & mahAbhArata :
2.775 He then continually worked miracles and performed hundreds of thousands of magical feats as described in the Mahābhārata. There is no doubt that it was because of the king of incense that Viṣṇu defeated the Pāṇḍavas.
2.866 "Regarding books on the subject of awakening, I will explain the doctrine, the rules of discipline, and the philosophy of Mahāyāna. To brahmins, I will explain the Purāṇas, the Vedas, fire oblation rituals, the Mahābhārata, and the Rāmāyaṇa.
Dashrata Jataka is part of pali canon but pali canon doesn't claim to be buddha's work. It calls itself as work of his followers who arrived in lanka in Parivāra 2.1 :
“Upāli and Dāsaka, Soṇaka and so Siggava; With Moggaliputta as the fifth— These were in India, the land named after the glorious rose apple.
Then Mahinda, Iṭṭiya, Uttiya and so Sambala; And the wise one named Bhadda:
These mighty beings of great wisdom, Came here from India; They taught the Collection on Monastic Law, In Sri Lanka.
And the five Collections of Discourses, And the seven works of philosophy; Then Ariṭṭha the discerning, And the wise Tissadatta.
Thus rAmAyaNa & mahAbhArata existed at the time of buddha & Dashrata Jataka was a much later composition by buddha's disciples.
It can be rationally proven that Ramayana and Mahabharata weren't copied from Buddhist Jataka and were the other way around. If you look at the extent of detail in the Ithihasas and their mere length, you can see a well-established tradition of worshipping these avatars of Vishnu. Not to mention their continual use in second-hand literature like Puranas. Buddha is also seen as an avatar of Vishnu, but before he came to be known as such he spouted his false Dharma known as Buddha Dharma as per Vishnu Purana. Therefore, the major core details of Buddha's life are seen within the Buddhist and not Hindu tradition. Essentially your claim is like me saying just because a small reference in the sacred Purana of Buddha's existence is mentioned, the Hindu tradition was the first to conceive of Buddha.
"Of heretics, or those who reject the authority of the Vedas: their origin, as described by Vaśiṣṭha to Bhīṣma: the gods, defeated by the Daityas, praise Viṣṇu: an illusory being, or Buddha, produced from his body."
--Chapter XVII - Of heretics, or those who reject the authority of the Vedas
Disclaimer: To give direct citations and a proper answer as expected by Hinduism SE, for this question is not easy, so I am going to make an internal logical argument in favor of the ancientness of Hindu Epics. This and similar type of questions seems more to be trying to shake the faith of Hindus in their religion than trying to make an honest historical argument. So I am going to address from that standpoint.
First I'm going to explain my opinion on this and then try to give a logical argument as to how to establish the ancientness of Hindu epics with Buddhists. As a Hindu, I have some unpopular beliefs, which are only my speculations and opinions and are not to be taken as the orthodox beliefs. This is more of sharing my opinion than an actual answer, as I feel there should be more discussions about this among Hindus
I think Mahabharata War happened around 800-1000 BCE. And Ramayana happened around 600-800 years before Mahabharata, so around 1400-1800 BCE.
This is because:
there is the direct statement that there were 1,015 (or 1,050) years between the birth of Parikshit (Arjuna's grandson) and the accession of Mahapadma Nanda (400–329 BCE), which would yield an estimate of about 1400 BCE for the Bharata battle. owever, this would imply improbably long reigns on average for the kings listed in the genealogies.Of the second kind is analysis of parallel genealogies in the Puranas between the times of Adhisimakrishna (Parikshit's great-grandson) and Mahapadma Nanda. Pargiter accordingly estimated 26 generations by averaging 10 different dynastic lists and, assuming 18 years for the average duration of a reign, arrived at an estimate of 850 BCE for Adhisimakrishna, and thus approximately 950 BCE for the Bharata battle.
B. B. Lal used the same approach with a more conservative assumption of the average reign to estimate a date of 836 BCE, and correlated this with archaeological evidence from Painted Grey Ware (PGW) sites, the association being strong between PGW artifacts and places mentioned in the epic. John Keay confirms this and also gives 950 BCE for the Bharata battle Source
And Ramayana happened around 600-800 years ago because, Brihadbala a descendant of Lord Sri Rama is mentioned in Mahabharata. He was 31 or 32 generation from Lord Rama. Assuming an average of 22 years per generation, it would be approximately 600-800 years.
Brihadbala is considered to be the last king of the line of Ikshvaku; the dynasty spanned 31-32 generations between Rama and him. Source
But both Ramayana and Mahabharatha were written much later, they were probably passed down orally from generation to generation and then added upon, exaggerated and then compiled into the currently available forms.
Mahabharata completion date maybe around 400 BCE to 200 AD
The bulk of the Mahābhārata was probably compiled between the 3rd century BCE and the 3rd century CE, with the oldest preserved parts not much older than around 400 BCE.[6][7] The text probably reached its final form by the early Gupta period (c. 4th century CE) Source
And Ramayana:
The scholars' estimates for the earliest stage of the text ranging from the 7th to 4th centuries BCE,[5][6] and later stages extending up to the 3rd century CE Source
But Lord Buddha's time period is around 500 BCE, by then maybe Ramayana and Mahabharata were still not be compiled or widely circulated and may have remained in scholarly circles. Hindus were more oral tradition oriented so may have not felt the need to put it down on paper. So that is why we do not have very ancient manuscripts. This does not mean the epics were later created.
Instead of trying to prove whether Hindus copied Ramayana and Mahabharata from Buddhist Jataka tales, I think we can use their own claim against them and try to prove Ramayana and Mahabharata actually happened, there by some Hindus definitely would have seen and known the stories before Lord Buddha.
Assuming you are arguing with a believing Buddhist, you ask them the following simple question. "Do you believe Jataka tales are authentic works told by Lord Buddha himself?"
If they say no, then they themselves will have to say Jataka tales are fake and madeup and were not told by Lord Buddha. And they have to admit their own tradition has been lying.
If they say yes, then ask "Do you think Lord Buddha is a liar?"
If they say yes, even arguing that Lord Buddha could have lied for a good purpose, then they can't entirely trust their own religion as the entire philosophy maybe a lie propounded by Lord Buddha.
If they say no, which probably any Buddhist would say, then the Jataka tales told by Lord Buddha should be considered real and true. So according to Buddhism itself Lord Buddha was born as Rama Pandita in Dashratha Jataka in one of his previous birth, so if Lord Buddha is saying truth then the story of Ramayana did really happen before Lord Buddha, which many Hindus would have seen and remembered and passed down to their descendants which eventually got compiled into Ramayana.
So according to Buddhist themselves Ramayana happened historically if we were to trust the words of Lord Buddha, so it cannot be a later invention, although some parts may be added. Similar argument can be used for Mahabharata.
P. S:
Regarding other sources argument: This answer is accepted as of now, as the correct answer. While the answer is very informative, it doesn't solve the problem.
The two early sources doesn't mention Ramayana and Mahabharata by name. It just says Itihasa which means history. This cannot be used to automatically mean Ramayana and Mahabharata as Hindus understand the word today, and therefore doesn't prove these Hindus epics existed before.
The third source does mention the epics by name, but it seems to be a very late version. Probably compiled after 5th century AD as per ChatGPT, as I couldn't find it on Wiki. And even then the author doesn't tell Lord Buddha learned Ramayana and Mahabharata, he is telling Lord Buddha performed similar miracles and then the author says he will teach Brahmins Vedas, Epics etc. This in no way proves that Ramayana and Mahabharata existed before Lord Buddha.
