“Perhaps you could present the historical claims for Buddhism.”
Why would I have to do that in the context of this line of inquiry? The point being debated here is the statement “A myth can’t survive 2,000 years.” I have no interest whatsoever to defend or present any ‘historical claims’ of an ancient belief system of any kind. I’m merely recognizing that evidence exists to dispute that declarative statement.
Still waiting for such evidence. I still only see assertions.