user14010: I’m trying to find the truth behind religious movements, for so far possible of course. I admit, it’s with a selfish goal, but it’s important for me. I want to find my way in Life and try to understand things about Life. Alas I am a little skeptical about things.
I’m trying to learn as much as possible from the main religions, Christianity, Buddhism and Islam (and of course I try to learn things about the Jewish faith and Hinduism).  What they all have in common is the written sources are all written many years after that the “main person” – the Founder – is deceased. The gospels are written many years after the crucifixion of Jesus the Christ, the Pali Canon is written about two/three hundred years after Gautama the Buddha, and the Quran more than twenty years after Muhammad the Prophet. All texts seems to be composed by followers who decides which texts to be sacred and which text are had to left outside the canon. And all have in common that believers believe that they contain the thru words of the founder.
After reading the Quran, also a composed book by followers, I decided that this book does not contain the words of a God or whatever Devine being. I contain so much threats to humans that I cannot believe that a divine creature is the source of this text. With the exceptional rude text that when you are a Muslim, and you think about changing to another believe, Allah will torture you forever by burning off your skin, let it grow again, and burn it again, etcetera. Next page there was written Allah is merciful. I cannot think of a better contradiction in one book itself. And there are so much other threads to otherwise-believers that I think this book should be forbidden. There are many rules maybe written down by his followers after his life to maintain the status quo.
Jesus Christ on the other side amazes me with his Message of Love. But what about Paul and Peter, did they really wrote down the words of God? So many rules, rules never spoke out by Jesus. But written down by Paul and Peter.
So I come to the Buddhism. I really understand that it is not a religion in the way of the two here above mentioned. I don’t know much about Buddhism but I think to understand that the concept of a God was not the foremost concern of Gautama the Buddha, since it was not possible to learn about this concept during Human Life. I also understand that he is not THE only Buddha. I think his original message had some complex elements for a layman, but was great with also still a simple one.
I have the impression that after his life his followers made up many rules, rituals, maybe not with the origin of Gautama. Some will say that this is because the Shakyamuni Buddha is not the only Buddha. And he is not the foundation of the Buddhism movement, but it started before him.
So I come to my question, after this long intro: the Buddhavamsa mentions about 29 Buddhas, including Maitreya. Twenty seven before Shakyamuni (Gautama) the Buddha. This raiser a few questions to me. I hope you can answer these as exact as possible.
1-  If Gautama is not the first founder of Buddhism why where these Buddhas not worldly known to be in existence before his life? Why took it hundreds of years before they were mentioned in Holy Scripts? Now it seems to me that Buddhism followers made them up to declare and explain rules and things in their canon. Wrote down their names to upgrade the core of their faith.
2-  Is the Buddhavamsa the first Holy Scripture where the Buddhas of the Past are all mentioned? 
3-  Who wrote this scripture?
4-  So far as I understand (have read) Gautama mentions only six Buddhas during his life. How can persons than know the names of the other Buddhas after the death of Gautama without making this up? Because there is no record that he did mention them his self?
5-  How can we ever know the name of the Buddhas who lived hundreds of thousand years before us? Like Dipankara Buddha and even the ones before? 
6-  Why did the Buddhas of the past not launch Buddhism as we know it, or their own version of it?
I know I sound skeptical, but that is not the purpose. I try to make up if there is any sense in being a Buddhist. I want to follow only what the Devine Beings want to teach up (for so far they exist) and not to follow rules and stories made up by men. So I hope to learn from your answers.
With kind regards, Johan

user13190: I try to make up if there is any sense in being a Buddhist.  <--- The only sense you will need is the realization of the Four Noble Truths. 
The six questions you raised, are no where near most important if one wants to be a practicing Buddhist, or not. 

user254: If Gautama is not the first founder of Buddhism etc.
I don't know who wrote the Buddhavamsa and why.
Perhaps it's not important, and can be ignored? It's hard to find an English-language translation of it -- which implies to me that the many venerable monks, who have kindly translated so many of the other suttas, consider it secondary.
Wikipedia says:

Along with the Apadāna and the Cariyāpiṭaka, the Buddhavamsa is considered by most scholars to have been written during the 1st and 2nd century BCE, and is therefore a late addition to the Pāli Canon.

To answer or reply to the first paragraphs of your question, I think we're meant to understand that:

Gautama Buddha discovered Buddhism -- i.e. discovered and taught the Dhamma
Previous (pre-historic) Buddhas had done the same, but their teaching had been forgotten -- so Gautama rediscovered it.
I think a sasana is the period of time/history during which the teachings of a specific Buddha are remembered ... perhaps 1000s of years. The next Buddha will be needed after all traces of Buddhism associated with this Buddha -- including enlightened states, Buddhist practices, Buddhist texts, and the Buddhist monks and nuns -- have disappeared.
The Duration of the Sasana of Buddha Gotama says,

In the Anagatavamsa commentary, the Buddha is said to preface the account of the future Buddha Ariya Metteyya by saying his own dispensation will disappear in five stages: (1) the disappearance of analytical insight (patisambhida), (2) the disappearance of the Paths and Fruition States, (3) the disappearance of the practice (patipatti), (4) the disappearance of the texts (pariyatti), and (5) the disappearance of the Sangha.


The Buddhavamsa ... is the fourteenth book of the Khuddaka Nikāya, which in turn is the fifth and last division of the Sutta Piṭaka.[3] The Sutta Piṭaka is one of three pitakas (main sections) which together constitute the Tripiṭaka, or Pāli Canon of Theravāda Buddhism.

The first four divisions of the Sutta Piṭaka (unlike the Khuddaka Nikāya) contain suttas which were (allegedly) spoken by the Buddha and/or by various named disciples during his life. Monks met immediately after his death to decide to what to remember as doctrine -- for details see Buddhist councils.
The rules and rituals, of monastic life, were likewise defined during the Buddha's life. The Buddha gave them permission to change less-important rules, but I think they decided they couldn't be sure which rules were less important and so preserved them all.
Other rites and rituals were developed over time -- anything to do with Buddhist art, for example -- sometimes influenced by later teachers and contemporary beliefs.

I don't know why there's any Buddhist doctrine about cosmology -- that the universe is cyclic, that there were previous Buddhas:

Perhaps (I imagine) it's to emphasise that people don't escape samsara by simply dying (i.e. they need to practice).
Perhaps it's something to do with a proof of legitimacy (i.e. this Buddha's being endorsed or confirmed by previous Buddhas)

Anyway I think that (by definition) little is known about previous Buddhas and their doctrine. The only datum I'm aware is from the Dhammapada:

Verse 183: Not to do evil, to cultivate merit, to purify one's mind - this is the Teaching of [[all]] the Buddhas.
Verse 184: The best moral practice is patience and forbearance; "Nibbana is Supreme", said the Buddhas. A bhikkhu does not harm others; one who harms others is not a bhikkhu.
Verse 185: Not to revile, not to do any harm, to practise restraint according to the Fundamental Instructions for the bhikkhus, to be moderate in taking food, to dwell in a secluded place, to devote oneself to higher concentration - this is the Teaching of the Buddhas.

Why did the Buddhas of the past not launch Buddhism as we know it, or their own version of it?
As I said above -- according to the doctrine, which says there were previous Buddhas, they would have done so ("launch Buddhism") but it was forgotten in time. I think that Buddhism defines "a Buddha" as someone who is not only enlightened, but someone who became enlightened after discovering Buddhism for themselves, at a time when the previous Buddha's doctrine had been forgotten. So there's only one Buddha in any given age or sasana.
I think his original message had some complex elements for a layman, but was great with also still a simple one.
I think that is the important bit, the Buddha's doctrine or Dhamma:

Maybe that starts with the doctrine of the "four noble truths"
Or maybe it starts with doctrine about morality.

According to the Kalama Sutta (AN 3.65) people shouldn't base their beliefs on canonical authority, lineage, who the teacher is -- and instead they should believe a doctrine when "you know for yourself" that the doctrine is beneficial, blameless, praised by the wise.

user5734: I’m a practicing Buddhist and do not have all the answers but I believe what you are trying to do is to pick out the most “truthful/logical” religion and some of the questions you ask are to provide you with proof as to which religion to ultimately accept.
In regards to some of your questions, remember it’s historical literature passed down through the generations; his-story. So along the way, things were definitely added. But if I can entertain your question about how many Buddhas, Buddhism teaches that rebirth is endless and based on the size of the universe, Buddhas came and went throughout; so it’s probably not just here on earth. In historical context, during the time of the Gautama Buddha, earth’s developed human civilization was fairly young. (when we went from hunters and gathers to being agrarians)
But knowing what is actually accurate or exaggerated isn’t really the point, the Buddha’s fundamental teachings were to escape suffering. The only proof you need is that there is suffering and that you should look towards to ending it. 

user8157: 
11. Those who mistake the unessential to be essential and the essential to be unessential, dwelling in wrong thoughts, never arrive
  at the essential.
12. Those who know the essential to be essential and the unessential to be unessential, dwelling in right thoughts, do arrive at the
  essential.
Dhammmapada



the Buddhavamsa mentions about 29 Buddhas, including Maitreya. Twenty seven before Shakyamuni (Gautama) the Buddha.

I have practised then studied Buddhism near 30 years but never read the Buddhavamsa. The Buddhavamsa is a later text not attributed to the Buddha. Along with the Apadāna and the Cariyāpiṭaka, the Buddhavamsa is considered by most scholars to have been written during the 1st and 2nd century BCE, and is therefore a late addition to the Pāli Canon.

This raiser a few questions to me. I hope you can answer these as exact as possible.

In Buddhism, only verifiable truth can be exact.

1- If Gautama is not the first founder of Buddhism why where these Buddhas not worldly known to be in existence before his life? Why took
  it hundreds of years before they were mentioned in Holy Scripts? Now
  it seems to me that Buddhism followers made them up to declare and
  explain rules and things in their canon. Wrote down their names to
  upgrade the core of their faith.

Gautama is the only known founder of Buddhism. There are previous Buddha's also mention in some Pali suttas attributed to the Buddha but because these suttas are so few it is unlikely they were actually spoken by the Buddha. The fact that all of these past Buddha's are said to have lived in India shows these stories are unlikely to be true. Past Buddha's are particularly mentioned in the Digha Nikaya; which is regarded by most scholars as a set of suttas compiled for propagation to and conversion of Brahmans. Therefore, many of the mythical  Digha Nikaya suttas should be treated with skepticism. 

2- Is the Buddhavamsa the first Holy Scripture where the Buddhas of the Past are all mentioned?

The question cannot be answered. Since there are certain but extremely few suttas attributed to the Buddha that share the language & ideas of the Buddhavamsa and Apadāna; it is most likely those extremely few suttas are later composition added to the suttas and falsely attributed to the Buddha. Given these questionable suttas contradict the core suttas; they are probably false suttas. 

3- Who wrote this scripture?

I don't know. Maybe an influential cleric under the orders of King Ashoka to create Buddhist propaganda to convert Brahmans (Hindus) to Buddhism. 

4- So far as I understand (have read) Gautama mentions only six Buddhas during his life. How can persons than know the names of the
  other Buddhas after the death of Gautama without making this up?
  Because there is no record that he did mention them his self?

The above cannot be verified as true. It is most likely made up. It is unimportant. It is unrelated to the essence & fundamentals of Buddhism. The fact there are stories of certain disciples who studied under the past Buddhas contradicts the doctrine of not-self (anatta) and particularly contradicts the meaning of "past abodes" (wrongly translated as "past lives") found in SN 22.79. Any ideas about literal "past lives" is contrary to SN 22.79 and contrary to the True Dhamma. 

5- How can we ever know the name of the Buddhas who lived hundreds of thousand years before us? Like Dipankara Buddha and even the ones
  before?

We can't. 

6- Why did the Buddhas of the past not launch Buddhism as we know it, or their own version of it?

Because people lived in caves & grunted like animals. 

I know I sound skeptical, but that is not the purpose.

It is important to be skeptical about these unimportant matters. 

I try to make up if there is any sense in being a Buddhist.

These things are unrelated to being a Buddhist. They are not the fundamentals of the Holy Life. The Buddha often scolded people for such obsessions. 

I want to follow only what the Divine Beings want to teach up (for so far they exist) and not to follow rules and stories made up by men. So
  I hope to learn from your answers.

If you want to learn about Buddhism, start with the 1st three sermons of the Buddha. 

user471: In Christianity and Judaism, it's perhaps important to trace the personal history and genealogy of Jesus and Moses all the way back to Adam. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, did not perform miracles and did not die on the cross, there would be no Christianity, regardless of what Jesus taught. If Moses did not encounter God as the burning bush and did not perform miracles, there would be no Judaism, regardless of what Moses taught.
But in Buddhism, tracing the history of the Buddhas or even the personal history of Gautama Buddha is not important compared to the teachings of Gautama Buddha. The miracles or powers attributed to Gautama Buddha is also not important compared to his teachings. In fact, even if Gautama Buddha never existed historically, the teachings attributed to him would still be relevant and useful in the path to the end of suffering.
I'm sure there are parts of the Pali Canon (also known as Tripitaka or Tipitaka) which are more important and more credible than other parts. This applies to scriptures of other religions too. For e.g. the Synoptic Gospels of the Bible are more important than Song of Songs.
For the core teachings of the Buddha, I would suggest to focus on the Sutta Pitaka. The Sutta Pitaka is composed of the Digha Nikaya (DN), Majjhima Nikaya (MN), Samyutta Nikaya (SN), Anguttara Nikaya (AN) and Khuddaka Nikaya (KN).
The Khuddaka Nikaya is the minor collection which is composed of 15 to 18 books, of which the most important are the Sutta Nipata, Dhammapada, Udana, Itivuttaka, Theragatha and Therigatha. You can safely omit the rest of the books in KN including Buddhavamsa.
If you want to narrow down further, I would suggest reading the question "Chronological or other sequence for beginners", particularly this answer.
Also, Bhikkhu Bodhi's book "In the Buddha's Words", mentioned in this answer would also be an excellent choice of a thematically and systematically arranged anthology that selects the most important suttas for inclusion in a 512-page book, out of the entire Pali Canon which is of the size of a large library bookshelf. PDF version here.

14010: <p>I’m trying to find the truth behind religious movements, for so far possible of course. I admit, it’s with a selfish goal, but it’s important for me. I want to find my way in Life and try to understand things about Life. Alas I am a little skeptical about things.</p>

<p>I’m trying to learn as much as possible from the main religions, Christianity, Buddhism and Islam (and of course I try to learn things about the Jewish faith and Hinduism).  What they all have in common is the written sources are all written many years after that the “main person” – the Founder – is deceased. The gospels are written many years after the crucifixion of Jesus the Christ, the Pali Canon is written about two/three hundred years after Gautama the Buddha, and the Quran more than twenty years after Muhammad the Prophet. All texts seems to be composed by followers who decides which texts to be sacred and which text are had to left outside the canon. And all have in common that believers believe that they contain the thru words of the founder.</p>

<p>After reading the Quran, also a composed book by followers, I decided that this book does not contain the words of a God or whatever Devine being. I contain so much threats to humans that I cannot believe that a divine creature is the source of this text. With the exceptional rude text that when you are a Muslim, and you think about changing to another believe, Allah will torture you forever by burning off your skin, let it grow again, and burn it again, etcetera. Next page there was written Allah is merciful. I cannot think of a better contradiction in one book itself. And there are so much other threads to otherwise-believers that I think this book should be forbidden. There are many rules maybe written down by his followers after his life to maintain the status quo.</p>

<p>Jesus Christ on the other side amazes me with his Message of Love. But what about Paul and Peter, did they really wrote down the words of God? So many rules, rules never spoke out by Jesus. But written down by Paul and Peter.</p>

<p>So I come to the Buddhism. I really understand that it is not a religion in the way of the two here above mentioned. I don’t know much about Buddhism but I think to understand that the concept of a God was not the foremost concern of Gautama the Buddha, since it was not possible to learn about this concept during Human Life. I also understand that he is not THE only Buddha. I think his original message had some complex elements for a layman, but was great with also still a simple one.</p>

<p>I have the impression that after his life his followers made up many rules, rituals, maybe not with the origin of Gautama. Some will say that this is because the Shakyamuni Buddha is not the only Buddha. And he is not the foundation of the Buddhism movement, but it started before him.</p>

<p>So I come to my question, after this long intro: the Buddhavamsa mentions about 29 Buddhas, including Maitreya. Twenty seven before Shakyamuni (Gautama) the Buddha. This raiser a few questions to me. I hope you can answer these as exact as possible.</p>

<p>1-  If Gautama is not the first founder of Buddhism why where these Buddhas not worldly known to be in existence before his life? Why took it hundreds of years before they were mentioned in Holy Scripts? Now it seems to me that Buddhism followers made them up to declare and explain rules and things in their canon. Wrote down their names to upgrade the core of their faith.</p>

<p>2-  Is the Buddhavamsa the first Holy Scripture where the Buddhas of the Past are all mentioned? </p>

<p>3-  Who wrote this scripture?</p>

<p>4-  So far as I understand (have read) Gautama mentions only six Buddhas during his life. How can persons than know the names of the other Buddhas after the death of Gautama without making this up? Because there is no record that he did mention them his self?</p>

<p>5-  How can we ever know the name of the Buddhas who lived hundreds of thousand years before us? Like Dipankara Buddha and even the ones before? </p>

<p>6-  Why did the Buddhas of the past not launch Buddhism as we know it, or their own version of it?</p>

<p>I know I sound skeptical, but that is not the purpose. I try to make up if there is any sense in being a Buddhist. I want to follow only what the Devine Beings want to teach up (for so far they exist) and not to follow rules and stories made up by men. So I hope to learn from your answers.</p>

<p>With kind regards, Johan</p>
 13190: <p>I try to make up if there is any sense in being a Buddhist.  &lt;--- The only sense you will need is the realization of the Four Noble Truths. </p>

<p>The six questions you raised, are no where near most important if one wants to be a practicing Buddhist, or not. </p>
 254: <p><strong>If Gautama is not the first founder of Buddhism etc.</strong></p>

<p>I don't know who wrote the Buddhavamsa and why.</p>

<p>Perhaps it's not important, and can be ignored? It's hard to find an English-language translation of it -- which implies to me that the many venerable monks, who have kindly translated so many of the other suttas, consider it secondary.</p>

<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhavamsa" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia</a> says:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Along with the Apadāna and the Cariyāpiṭaka, the Buddhavamsa is considered by most scholars to have been written during the 1st and 2nd century BCE, and is therefore a late addition to the Pāli Canon.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>To answer or reply to the first paragraphs of your question, I think we're meant to understand that:</p>

<ul>
<li>Gautama Buddha discovered Buddhism -- i.e. discovered and taught the Dhamma</li>
<li>Previous (pre-historic) Buddhas had done the same, but their teaching had been forgotten -- so Gautama rediscovered it.</li>
<li><p>I think a <em>sasana</em> is the period of time/history during which the teachings of a specific Buddha are remembered ... perhaps 1000s of years. The next Buddha will be needed after all traces of Buddhism associated with this Buddha -- including enlightened states, Buddhist practices, Buddhist texts, and the Buddhist monks and nuns -- have disappeared.</p>

<p><a href="https://what-buddha-said.net/library/Metteyya/arimet03.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Duration of the Sasana of Buddha Gotama</a> says,</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In the Anagatavamsa commentary, the Buddha is said to preface the account of the future Buddha Ariya Metteyya by saying his own dispensation will disappear in five stages: (1) the disappearance of analytical insight (patisambhida), (2) the disappearance of the Paths and Fruition States, (3) the disappearance of the practice (patipatti), (4) the disappearance of the texts (pariyatti), and (5) the disappearance of the Sangha.</p>
</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>
  <p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhavamsa" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Buddhavamsa</a> ... is the fourteenth book of the Khuddaka Nikāya, which in turn is the fifth and last division of the Sutta Piṭaka.[3] The Sutta Piṭaka is one of three pitakas (main sections) which together constitute the Tripiṭaka, or Pāli Canon of Theravāda Buddhism.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The first four divisions of the Sutta Piṭaka (unlike the Khuddaka Nikāya) contain suttas which were (allegedly) spoken by the Buddha and/or by various named disciples during his life. Monks met immediately after his death to decide to what to remember as doctrine -- for details see <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_councils" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Buddhist councils</a>.</p></li>
<li><p>The rules and rituals, of monastic life, were likewise defined during the Buddha's life. The Buddha gave them permission to change less-important rules, but I think they decided they couldn't be sure which rules were less important and so preserved them all.</p></li>
<li><p>Other rites and rituals were developed over time -- anything to do with Buddhist art, for example -- sometimes influenced by later teachers and contemporary beliefs.</p></li>
</ul>

<p>I don't know why there's any Buddhist doctrine about cosmology -- that the universe is cyclic, that there were previous Buddhas:</p>

<ul>
<li>Perhaps (I imagine) it's to emphasise that people don't escape samsara by simply dying (i.e. they need to practice).</li>
<li>Perhaps it's something to do with a proof of legitimacy (i.e. this Buddha's being endorsed or confirmed by previous Buddhas)</li>
</ul>

<p>Anyway I think that (by definition) little is known about previous Buddhas and their doctrine. The only datum I'm aware is from <a href="https://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=183" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the Dhammapada</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Verse 183: Not to do evil, to cultivate merit, to purify one's mind - this is the Teaching of [[all]] the Buddhas.</p>
  
  <p>Verse 184: The best moral practice is patience and forbearance; "Nibbana is Supreme", said the Buddhas. A bhikkhu does not harm others; one who harms others is not a bhikkhu.</p>
  
  <p>Verse 185: Not to revile, not to do any harm, to practise restraint according to the Fundamental Instructions for the bhikkhus, to be moderate in taking food, to dwell in a secluded place, to devote oneself to higher concentration - this is the Teaching of the Buddhas.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>Why did the Buddhas of the past not launch Buddhism as we know it, or their own version of it?</strong></p>

<p>As I said above -- according to the doctrine, which says there were previous Buddhas, they would have done so ("launch Buddhism") but it was forgotten in time. I think that Buddhism defines "a Buddha" as someone who is not only enlightened, but someone who became enlightened after discovering Buddhism for themselves, at a time when the previous Buddha's doctrine had been forgotten. So there's only one Buddha in any given age or <em>sasana</em>.</p>

<p><strong>I think his original message had some complex elements for a layman, but was great with also still a simple one.</strong></p>

<p>I think that is the important bit, the Buddha's doctrine or Dhamma:</p>

<ul>
<li>Maybe that starts with the doctrine of the "four noble truths"</li>
<li>Or maybe it starts with doctrine about morality.</li>
</ul>

<p>According to the <a href="https://suttacentral.net/an3.65/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Kalama Sutta (AN 3.65)</a> people shouldn't base their beliefs on canonical authority, lineage, who the teacher is -- and instead they should believe a doctrine when "you know for yourself" that the doctrine is beneficial, blameless, praised by the wise.</p>
 5734: <p>I’m a practicing Buddhist and do not have all the answers but I believe what you are trying to do is to pick out the most “truthful/logical” religion and some of the questions you ask are to provide you with proof as to which religion to ultimately accept.</p>

<p>In regards to some of your questions, remember it’s historical literature passed down through the generations; his-story. So along the way, things were definitely added. But if I can entertain your question about how many Buddhas, Buddhism teaches that rebirth is endless and based on the size of the universe, Buddhas came and went throughout; so it’s probably not just here on earth. In historical context, during the time of the Gautama Buddha, earth’s developed human civilization was fairly young. (when we went from hunters and gathers to being agrarians)</p>

<p>But knowing what is actually accurate or exaggerated isn’t really the point, the Buddha’s fundamental teachings were to escape suffering. The only proof you need is that there is suffering and that you should look towards to ending it. </p>
 8157: <blockquote>
  <p><em>11. Those who mistake the unessential to be essential and the essential to be unessential, dwelling in wrong thoughts, never arrive
  at the essential.</em></p>
  
  <p><em>12. Those who know the essential to be essential and the unessential to be unessential, dwelling in right thoughts, do arrive at the
  essential.</em></p>
  
  <p><a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.01.budd.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Dhammmapada</em></a></p>
</blockquote>

<hr>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>the Buddhavamsa mentions about 29 Buddhas, including Maitreya. Twenty seven before Shakyamuni (Gautama) the Buddha.</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>I have practised then studied Buddhism near 30 years but never read the Buddhavamsa. The Buddhavamsa is a later text not attributed to the Buddha. Along with the Apadāna and the Cariyāpiṭaka, the Buddhavamsa is considered by most scholars to have been written during the 1st and 2nd century BCE, and is therefore a late addition to the Pāli Canon.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>This raiser a few questions to me. I hope you can answer these as exact as possible.</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>In Buddhism, only verifiable truth can be exact.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>1- If Gautama is not the first founder of Buddhism why where these Buddhas not worldly known to be in existence before his life? Why took
  it hundreds of years before they were mentioned in Holy Scripts? Now
  it seems to me that Buddhism followers made them up to declare and
  explain rules and things in their canon. Wrote down their names to
  upgrade the core of their faith.</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Gautama is the only known founder of Buddhism. There are previous Buddha's also mention in some Pali suttas attributed to the Buddha but because these suttas are so few it is unlikely they were actually spoken by the Buddha. The fact that all of these past Buddha's are said to have lived in India shows these stories are unlikely to be true. Past Buddha's are particularly mentioned in the Digha Nikaya; which is regarded by most scholars as a set of suttas compiled for propagation to and conversion of Brahmans. Therefore, many of the mythical  Digha Nikaya suttas should be treated with skepticism. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>2- Is the Buddhavamsa the first Holy Scripture where the Buddhas of the Past are all mentioned?</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>The question cannot be answered. Since there are certain but extremely few suttas attributed to the Buddha that share the language &amp; ideas of the Buddhavamsa and Apadāna; it is most likely those extremely few suttas are later composition added to the suttas and falsely attributed to the Buddha. Given these questionable suttas contradict the core suttas; they are probably false suttas. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>3- Who wrote this scripture?</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>I don't know. Maybe an influential cleric under the orders of King Ashoka to create Buddhist propaganda to convert Brahmans (Hindus) to Buddhism. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>4- So far as I understand (have read) Gautama mentions only six Buddhas during his life. How can persons than know the names of the
  other Buddhas after the death of Gautama without making this up?
  Because there is no record that he did mention them his self?</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>The above cannot be verified as true. It is most likely made up. It is unimportant. It is unrelated to the essence &amp; fundamentals of Buddhism. The fact there are stories of certain disciples who studied under the past Buddhas contradicts the doctrine of not-self (anatta) and particularly contradicts the meaning of "past abodes" (wrongly translated as "past lives") found in <a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn22.79/en/bodhi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 22.79</a>. Any ideas about literal "past lives" is contrary to <a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn22.79/en/bodhi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 22.79</a> and contrary to the True Dhamma. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>5- How can we ever know the name of the Buddhas who lived hundreds of thousand years before us? Like Dipankara Buddha and even the ones
  before?</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>We can't. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>6- Why did the Buddhas of the past not launch Buddhism as we know it, or their own version of it?</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Because people lived in caves &amp; grunted like animals. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>I know I sound skeptical, but that is not the purpose.</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>It is important to be skeptical about these unimportant matters. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>I try to make up if there is any sense in being a Buddhist.</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>These things are unrelated to being a Buddhist. They are not the fundamentals of the Holy Life. The Buddha often scolded people for such obsessions. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>I want to follow only what the Divine Beings want to teach up (for so far they exist) and not to follow rules and stories made up by men. So
  I hope to learn from your answers.</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>If you want to learn about Buddhism, start with the <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel017.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">1st three sermons of the Buddha</a>. </p>
 471: <p>In Christianity and Judaism, it's perhaps important to trace the personal history and genealogy of Jesus and Moses all the way back to Adam. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, did not perform miracles and did not die on the cross, there would be no Christianity, regardless of what Jesus taught. If Moses did not encounter God as the burning bush and did not perform miracles, there would be no Judaism, regardless of what Moses taught.</p>

<p>But in Buddhism, tracing the history of the Buddhas or even the personal history of Gautama Buddha is not important compared to the teachings of Gautama Buddha. The miracles or powers attributed to Gautama Buddha is also not important compared to his teachings. In fact, even if Gautama Buddha never existed historically, the teachings attributed to him would still be relevant and useful in the path to the end of suffering.</p>

<p>I'm sure there are parts of the Pali Canon (also known as Tripitaka or Tipitaka) which are more important and more credible than other parts. This applies to scriptures of other religions too. For e.g. the Synoptic Gospels of the Bible are more important than Song of Songs.</p>

<p>For the core teachings of the Buddha, I would suggest to focus on the Sutta Pitaka. The Sutta Pitaka is composed of the Digha Nikaya (DN), Majjhima Nikaya (MN), Samyutta Nikaya (SN), Anguttara Nikaya (AN) and Khuddaka Nikaya (KN).</p>

<p>The Khuddaka Nikaya is the minor collection which is composed of 15 to 18 books, of which the most important are the Sutta Nipata, Dhammapada, Udana, Itivuttaka, Theragatha and Therigatha. You can safely omit the rest of the books in KN including Buddhavamsa.</p>

<p>If you want to narrow down further, I would suggest reading the question "<a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/4112/471">Chronological or other sequence for beginners</a>", particularly <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/22773/471">this answer</a>.</p>

<p>Also, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhikkhu_Bodhi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bhikkhu Bodhi</a>'s book "<a href="https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0861714911" rel="nofollow noreferrer">In the Buddha's Words</a>", mentioned in <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/8463/471">this answer</a> would also be an excellent choice of a thematically and systematically arranged anthology that selects the most important suttas for inclusion in a 512-page book, out of the entire Pali Canon which is of the size of a large library bookshelf. PDF version <a href="http://www.pacificbuddha.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/In-the-Buddhas-Words.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>.</p>
