(Purportedly) new dates for the Buddha...

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: (Purportedly) new dates for the Buddha...

Post by daverupa »

National Geographic wrote:Outside scholars applauded the discovery but cautioned against too hastily accepting the site as the oldest discovered Buddhist shrine without more analysis.

"Archaeologists love claiming that they have found the earliest or the oldest of something," says archaeologist Ruth Young of the United Kingdom's University of Leicester in an email message.
It's delightful to have some good material, of course. Fascinating in any event. If this pans out, though, the Nikayas/Agamas are looking more like ~400-year compilations instead of ~200-year ones, which would have interesting consequences.

I wonder how this will interface with the textual analysis already done, though.
The exact date of the Buddha's birth is disputed, with Nepalese authorities favoring 623 B.C., and other traditions favoring more recent dates, around 400 B.C.

Regardless, by 249 B.C. Lumbini had became one of the four sacred centers of Buddhism, marked by sanctifying inscriptions and a pillar left there in 249 B.C. by the Indian emperor Ashoka, who helped spread Buddhism across Asia.

Later abandoned, the site was rediscovered in 1896 and re-established as a worship center, the Maya Devi temple, which is now a World Heritage site.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: (Purportedly) new dates for the Buddha...

Post by lyndon taylor »

My guess is when you date charcoal you find in an archaelogy dig, its so and so many years +/- 200 years or so, these tests are certainly not 100% accurate. Same with Carbon 14 dating its not year specific accurate, and when you're dating things millions of years old it can be +/- a million years, etc etc.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

New discovery may push back Buddha's birth date

Post by cooran »

Hello All,

Oldest Buddhist Shrine uncovered in Nepal - may push back Buddha's birthdate

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... n-history/

With metta,
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 4644
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: New discovery may push back Buddha's birth date

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala »

In his introduction to his Discourse on the Dhammacakka Sutta, the Mahāsi Sayādaw said (in 1962):

Thus it was on the first watch of the full-moon of July, 2,551 years ago that this first discourse was delivered by the Blessed One. Western scholars regard this estimation as 60 years too early. According to their calculation, it was only 2,491 years ago that the first discourse was taught. As the event of the Turning of the Wheel of Dhamma took place in the East, I would prefer to go by the oriental calculation and regard the first discourse as being taught 2,551 years ago.¹

¹ Now 2602 years ago in 2013, the year 2557 of the Buddhist Era (as measured from the parinibbāna).
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
User avatar
Kusala
Posts: 1144
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:02 am

Oldest Buddhist shrine holds clues to Buddha's birth

Post by Kusala »

"This is one of those rare occasions when belief, tradition, archaeology and science actually come together," lead study author Robin Coningham, professor at Durham University in the United Kingdom, said at a press briefing Monday.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/25/world/asi ... ?hpt=hp_t3
"He, the Blessed One, is indeed the Noble Lord, the Perfectly Enlightened One;
He is impeccable in conduct and understanding, the Serene One, the Knower of the Worlds;
He trains perfectly those who wish to be trained; he is Teacher of gods and men; he is Awake and Holy. "

--------------------------------------------
"The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One,
Apparent here and now, timeless, encouraging investigation,
Leading to liberation, to be experienced individually by the wise. "
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: New discovery may push back Buddha's birth date

Post by chownah »

I am concerned that some people might misinterpret the meaning of "push back the buddha's birthdate".
I would like to make it clear that this discovery does not change the date upon which the Buddha was born......the Buddha was born on one particular day and no amount of scientific discovery will change that. It would be more accurate if the article had said that the new discovery may push back the estimate of the buddha's birthdate.......no one knows the buddha's birthday and scientists are trying to estimate when it was......so the discovery they just made indicates that their previous estimate should perhaps be moved back.
chownah
sphairos
Posts: 953
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:37 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: (Purportedly) new dates for the Buddha...

Post by sphairos »

Hello everyone,

famous Buddhologist and Tibetologist M. Kapstein wrote at some Buddhist scholars' mailing list:

"Dear Friends,

An interesting article in today's New York Times discusses recent finds at Lumbini.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/scien ... birth.html

It references an article in the current issue of the journal Antiquity that I have
not yet seen, and so I cannot say whether the NYT summary is fully accurate.
A few problems to note:

The date of Asoka, of course, is not at all taken as the date of the Buddha. Even the
'short chronology' would place the Buddha's passing a century or so earlier.

It is not at all clear to me why the discovery of a sixth century BCE structure at Lumbini
thought to be a "shrine" warrants the assumption that it is a Buddhist shrine.

In any case, I look forward to hearing what specialists in early Indian Buddhism might
have to say.

Matthew

Matthew Kapstein
Directeur d'études,
Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes"
How good and wonderful are your days,
How true are your ways?
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6590
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: New discovery may push back Buddha's birth date

Post by Mkoll »

chownah wrote:I am concerned that some people might misinterpret the meaning of "push back the buddha's birthdate".
I would like to make it clear that this discovery does not change the date upon which the Buddha was born......the Buddha was born on one particular day and no amount of scientific discovery will change that. It would be more accurate if the article had said that the new discovery may push back the estimate of the buddha's birthdate.......no one knows the buddha's birthday and scientists are trying to estimate when it was......so the discovery they just made indicates that their previous estimate should perhaps be moved back.
chownah
:goodpost:

EDIT:

Wow, this news made the front page on Wikipedia's news!
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
puppha
Posts: 160
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 8:56 pm
Location: London, UK

BBC: 'Earliest shrine' uncovered at Buddha's birthplace

Post by puppha »

That could be quite something. This discovery could potentially settle disputes about when the Buddha is born.
I just came across it today and thought about sharing that news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25088960
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: (Purportedly) new dates for the Buddha...

Post by Cittasanto »

If anyone is interested the article can be purchased for £15 here http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0871104.htm
I would be interested in what is said in this mailing list if it is ok to share the list location or certain posts.
sphairos wrote:Hello everyone,

famous Buddhologist and Tibetologist M. Kapstein wrote at some Buddhist scholars' mailing list:

"Dear Friends,

An interesting article in today's New York Times discusses recent finds at Lumbini.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/scien ... birth.html

It references an article in the current issue of the journal Antiquity that I have
not yet seen, and so I cannot say whether the NYT summary is fully accurate.
A few problems to note:

The date of Asoka, of course, is not at all taken as the date of the Buddha. Even the
'short chronology' would place the Buddha's passing a century or so earlier.

It is not at all clear to me why the discovery of a sixth century BCE structure at Lumbini
thought to be a "shrine" warrants the assumption that it is a Buddhist shrine.

In any case, I look forward to hearing what specialists in early Indian Buddhism might
have to say.

Matthew

Matthew Kapstein
Directeur d'études,
Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes"
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17168
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: (Purportedly) new dates for the Buddha...

Post by DNS »

This is pretty big news; hope it pans out the way it is looking so far. I believe previous to this the only hard-core archeological evidence of the life of Buddha were the Edicts of Ashoka, the Tipitaka and the matching of the archeological finds at Buddhist sites with the Tipitaka account. This would add a much older account and evidence.
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: (Purportedly) new dates for the Buddha...

Post by chownah »

sphairos wrote:"It is not at all clear to me why the discovery of a sixth century BCE structure at Lumbini
thought to be a "shrine" warrants the assumption that it is a Buddhist shrine."

Good posting, sphairos!

What evidence is there that this structure has anything to do with the Buddha at all?.....so far the only connection is it's geographical location being coincident with where the Buddha lived. Were there no shrines that existed before the Buddha was born?
chownah
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17168
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: (Purportedly) new dates for the Buddha...

Post by DNS »

It is still too early to conclusively say this is a Buddhist shrine. It is a shrine around a tree and Maya devi did grab a branch when she gave birth and then of course the Buddhist veneration of Bodhi trees. Other traditions also venerated trees, however there is this from National Geographic report:
"The tree roots appear to have been fertilized, and although bodhigara are found in older Indian traditions, the shrine lacked the signs of sacrifices or offerings found at such sites."

"It was very clean, in fact, which points to the Buddhist tradition of nonviolence and nonofferings," says Coningham.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... n-history/
So far we have as (circumstantial) evidence:
1. a 6th century BCE shrine found at Lumbini - the place of Buddha's birth,
2. a shrine housing a tree
3. no signs of sacrifices and offerings as found in shrines of other traditions.

Any one of the above would not be much evidence, but all 3 together provides some circumstantial evidence worth considering, although still not conclusive . . . yet.
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: (Purportedly) new dates for the Buddha...

Post by chownah »

If the tree roots appear to have been fertilized perhaps the structure was a lavatory......
chownah
Post Reply