It has been shown conclusively that in the earliest sutras Buddha is shown as having attained nirvana in this lifetime, and did not lose it during the decades before his death. Hundreds of years later, in Normative Buddhism, the early picture of Buddha’s enlightenment as nirvana had become increasingly modified, to the point that many came to consider it impossible to attain nirvana in one lifetime. Nevertheless, this must not mislead us into thinking that such was the view of the Buddha’s followers in his lifetime, or soon after his death. It is logically necessary for the Buddha to have achieved nirvana and for his followers to have believed that they could do the same thing if they imitated him, in order for such later ideas to have developed in reaction to it. If the Buddha had not achieved his remarkable, heroic breakthrough, there would have been no Buddhism.

Beckwith, Christopher I.. Greek Buddha: Pyrrho’s Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia (pp. 42-43). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

__________

In early Buddhism, it is also true that no one thought of the Buddha as a god. The Buddha himself, even in ‘Normative Buddhist’ texts, claims that he is ‘just a man’ and that anyone can achieve nirvana if they do the work (karma). It would probably be a good thing for Buddhists today to emphasize these points; and by so doing, remind Buddhism of its deepest roots — Nirvana is a real state that anyone can achieve if they do the work; and all dharmas (things) are characterized by the Three Signs, or Trilakṣaṇa: “All dharmas are anitya ‘impermanent’…. All dharmas are duḥkha ‘unsatisfactory, imperfect, unstable’…. All dharmas are anātman ‘without an innate self-identity’.” ABN

…although the sense of duḥkha in Normative Buddhism is traditionally given as ‘suffering’, that and similar interpretations are highly unlikely for Early Buddhism. Significantly, Monier-Williams himself doubts the usual explanation of duḥkha and presents an alternative one immediately after it, namely: duḥ-stha “‘standing badly,’ unsteady, disquieted (lit. and fig.); uneasy,” and so on. This form is also attested, and makes much better sense as the opposite of the Rig Veda sense of sukha, which Monier-Williams gives in full as “(said to be fr. 5. su + 3. kha, and to mean originally ‘having a good axle-hole’; possibly a Prakrit form of su-stha q.v.; cf. duḥkha) running swiftly or easily (only applied to cars or chariots, superl[ative] sukhátama), easy”. It would seem that there were two forms of each word; Prakrit and Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit chose the -kha forms instead of the -stha forms, which survived nevertheless in a much smaller way. The most important point here is that duḥ + stha literally means ‘dis-/ bad- + stand-’, that is, ‘badly standing, unsteady’ and is therefore virtually identical to the literal meaning of Greek astathmēta, from a- + sta- ‘not- + stand’, both evidently meaning ‘unstable’. This strongly suggests that Pyrrho’s middle term is in origin a simple calque.

Beckwith, Christopher I.. Greek Buddha: Pyrrho’s Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia (p. 30). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

__________

The First Noble Truth of Buddhism is usually translated as the truth of ‘suffering, unsatisfactoriness, or stress’. Beckwith presents a sound argument that it actually indicates a philosophical argument that untrained views are ‘badly standing, unsteady’ and not to be relied upon. Beckwith’s argument references Pyrrhonism because Pyrrho is known to have studied Buddhism in Bactria where he lived for ten years in Alexander’s court. During that time Pyrrho learned Buddhist philosophy and used it as the basis of Pyrrhonism, the earliest form of Greek skepticism. Beckwith is working with only attested documents. His argument that Pyrrhonism comes directly from Buddhism is very strong. I highly recommend his book Greek Buddha: Pyrrho’s Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia. ABN