The Dating of the Historical Buddha: A Review Article by LL cousins

[Guest guest]

The Dating of the Historical Buddha: A Review Article

L. S. COUSINS

(Originally published in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Series 3, 6.1 (1996): 57-63.)

 

(A review article of The Dating o fthe Historical Buddha. Die Datierung des Historischen Buddha.Edited by Heinz Bechert. 2 Vols (of 3). (Symposium zur Buddhismusforschung, IV, 1-2) pp. xv + 525; x + 530. Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991-2. DM 310, 256.)

In the fifteenth century the author of the Blue Annals wrote: ``In general (it must be observed) that there exists a great disagreement in the statements of scholars regarding the years of the Birth and Nirvana of the Teacher. [note] Presented with well over a thousand pages on the subject in two volumes (with a third to come), one might be excused for supposing that not much has changed in the last half millennium. In fact that would be somewhat illusory. Even if we have not yet been able to fix the exact dates of the Buddha and Mahavira, considerable progress has of course been made, as even a cursory look at the traditional dates of the past makes quite clear.

Within the Eastern Buddhist tradition of China, Vietnam, Korea and Japan (especially the latter two countries) the traditional date for the Mahaparinibbana (death) of the Buddha was 949 B.C., although a variant giving 878 B.C. is also possible. Earlier and down to the fifth century A.D. a date of 686 B.C. seems to have been fairly common. Although they may in part have been motivated by a desire to place the Buddha earlier in time than Lao-tse, these and other such dates were created by relating such events in the life-story Chinese records - a clear enough testimony that no very definite chronological information was brought to China by the early Buddhist missionaries.

In the Northern Buddhism of the Tibeto-Mongolian cultural area the Mahaparinibbana was officially dated to 881 B.C., the origin of which is not clear. Both Chinese and Tibetan scholars were, however, well aware that many other dates had been advanced. This is in sharp contrast to the Southern Buddhist tradition, which has retained no memory of any disagreement over the basic chronology of events since the Buddha's lifetime. (There have of course been slight differences as to the exact moment at which the year one commences.)

The era they preserve places the Buddha's Mahaparinibbana in 543 B.C. This is certainly much closer than the more widely accepted of the alternatives; so it is not surprising perhaps that it has tended to spread in modern times: it seems to have been adopted in Vietnam and Indonesia as well as by such modern organizations as the World Fellowship of Buddhist. There is some evidence also to suggest that it had been widely accepted in Kashmir, India and Nepal in the last period of Buddhism there (after the twelfth century or earlier). [note]

The volumes reviewed here stem from a conference held near Göttingen in 1988 under the auspices of Heinz Bechert. Indeed the modern revival of interest in this topic is very much to the credit of Bechert who wrote a number of articles on this subject prior to the conference. [note] Undoubtedly, even without the further source materials promised for the final volume, this is a major contribution to research in the field and for a long time to come will be essential for any serious study of pre-Mauryan chronology or early Buddhist history.

In fact these volumes are not limited to the specific question of the date of the Buddha. A proportion (over 120 pages) is devoted to the history of research while another large section (about 60 pages) reprints a number of relevant sources, some of them not otherwise conveniently accessible. A considerable space is in effect devoted to the history of the use of the various chronological systems in particular Buddhist countries. This is certainly of great interest for the history of Buddhism in various areas, but no doubt the greatest interest lies in the papers which relate directly to the dating of the Buddha.

2 The history of research

A valuable and detailed paper by Sieglinde Dietz surveys the history of research (Symp. II, 2, pp. 11-83). It is clear that from 1687 (Couplet) onwards scholars gradually became aware of the main traditionally-espoused dates and by the beginning of the nineteenth century had, not surprisingly, begun to favour the seemingly more reasonable dating found in the pali sources which underlie the Southern Buddhist tradition. As these became better known and as the Greek synchronisms which fix the dates of the Mauryan Emperors Candragupta and Asoka to within a decade or two became more firmly established, problems appeared. Indeed, already in 1836 G. Turnour, the translator of the Mahavamsa recognized that the Pali sources place the Mauryan rulers some sixty years too early.

Subsequently in the course of the nineteenth century a number of dates in the fourth and fifth centuries B.C. were advocated by various scholars, notably a date proposed by T. W. Rhys Davids of ``within a few years of 412 B.C.'' to which we will return. In the last decades of the nineteenth century and at the beginning of the twentieth century, however, a consensus gradually formed that the Buddha died towards the beginning of the fifth century B.C. - the dates most often cited are 483 or 486 B.C. In part this was because it became clear that the longer dating could be supported by data from the Puranas and by Jacobi's evaluation of the Jain evidence.

Also important here was a Chinese source: the so-called ``Dotted Record'' of the fifth century A.D. which seemed to present an independent dating for the Mahaparinibbana around 486 B.C. Already, as is made clear in Hubert Durt's survey of the Japanese and Korean data, some Japanese scholars had from the eighteenth century onwards begun to favour a date based upon the Dotted Record and information about the Record was communicated to Max Müller as early as 1884 by B. Nanjio. Another paper by Erhard Rosner refers to Yü Cheng-hsieh who in 1813 put forward the first century B.C. for the birth of the Buddha, erroneous no doubt but a clear enough indication of the critical trend developing.

At all events the consensus developed above was to remain overwhelmingly dominant in European [note] and South Asian scholarship for the first half of the twentieth century. I exclude from consideration the more fantastic Indian chronological speculations documented in otherwise interesting papers by Jens Uwe Hartmann and Gustav Roth. (There are equally fantastic pseudo-historical works in European literature too - e.g. the entertaining books on Atlantis, Mu, etc. by such writers as Donelly, Churchward, Scott-Elliot and the like - we don't usually treat them in a survey of serious scholarship!) There has been perhaps slightly more variety in Japanese scholarship (surveyed by Hajime Nakamura), there too the dating of the Buddha's death to the first quarter of the fifth century remained fairly standard.

More recently, doubts have gradually increased. Three reasons may be adduced for this: 1) a growing sense that such an early date does not fit well with the archaeological data; 2) a gradual recognition that the Dotted Record may be of Sinhalese origin and hence not fully independent from the Southern tradition; 3) a fuller awareness of the existence of a considerable number of largely Sarvastivadin sources which date the accession of Asoka around one hundred years after the Mahaparinibbana as opposed to the 218 years of the Pali sources. This was first perhaps expressed by Étienne Lamotte who in his highly influential history placed the previous consensus that the Sarvastivadin sources on an almost equal footing, distinguishing between the long chronology (i.e. the corrected version of the Southern Buddhist tradition) which places the death of the Buddha in c. 486 B.C. and the short chronology i.e. the Sarvastivadin which places the same event in c. 368 A.D. In fact, Lamotte does then adopt the long chronology: ``comme hypothèse de travail,'' [note] although he may have favoured a later dating in his last years.

3 The chronological systems in use in Buddhist countries

Space obviously would not permit a full review of the wide range of papers included in these volumes. Let us then simply note that the Tibeto-Mongolian data is thoroughly reviewed in articles by Günter Grönbold, Claus Vogel, Per Kvaerne, Klaus Sagaster, Eckart Zabel, Champa Thupten Zongtse (in Tibetan) and a rather fully annotated paper by Seyfort Ruegg. Central Asian and Iranian data is looked at by Klaus Röhrborn, Werner Sundermann (two papers) and Klaus Schmidt. In addition to the papers already mentioned, Eastern Buddhist matters are covered by Herbert Franke, Lewis Lancaster and Bhikkhu Pasadika (Vietnam).

There are also two papers concerned with the ``Axial Age Theory'' derived from the ideas of Karl Jaspers and a comparative paper concerned with parallel issues in early Greek history. Most of the above contributions represent a high standard of scholarship. I have more doubt in the case of some others. Let us simply note the over fifty pages devoted to the rather improbable, if erudite, speculations of P. H. L. Eggermont and the doubtful attempt of A. K. Narain to revive the old theory that there is a date in one of the inscriptions of Asoka (MRE1).

4 The conclusion of these volumes on the date of the Buddha

A number of contributors attempt to assess the most likely date for the Buddha by the use of indirect evidence as to Indian cultural history. Bechert has placed thirteen contributions under this section heading and sums up the result as follows:

.... the conclusion seems unavoidable that all major sources of indirect evidence point to later dates of the Buddha than those suggested by the corrected long chronology. (Symp. IV, I, p.11)

This seems to slightly overstate the case as not all the contributors propose any dating and others have worded their position very cautiously. It might be better to say that the overall tendency is to conclude that there is at minimum no objection to a later date. Undoubtedly the archaeological evidence as presented here by Herbert Härtel and in part by Hermann Kulke is the major factor tending to support a later date. It is not however clear whether it is as yet overwhelming. The other contributions which seem to support a late date are those by: George von Simson, Oskar von Hinüber, Siegfried Lienhard (around 400 B.C. with a margin of about twenty years). Wilhelm Halbfass and, rather cautiously, Lambert Schmithausen.

Turning to the ten papers which Bechert classes as dealing directly with the evaluation of the Indian tradition, seven seem to present a viable case. At the extremes: Cen'ichi Yamazaki defends the long chronology, while none of the other contributions in this section envisage a date before 420 B.C. to 350 B.C. but a ``somewhat later date is not inconceivable.'' (Symp. IV,I.p.236); no other contributor (except Eggermont) seems to propose a date after 380 B.C. Hajime Nakamura, K.R. Norman, and Richard Gombrich all propose dates within the range suggested by André Bareau: around 400 B.C. with a margin of twenty years on either side. Expressing this in other terms, the Buddha's period of teaching activity was in the second half of the fifth century B.C. perhaps extending into the first quarter of the fourth century.

It is worth noting that this is quite close to being a ``median chronology'' i.e. halfway between the short and the long chronology. Perhaps after all the difference between the short and the long chronology may in origin have simply amounted to whether 150 years was rounded down to a hundred or up to two hundred i.e. a difference in literary conventions.

In a paper read to the Royal Asiatic Society in 1872 and subsequently published in his On the Ancient Coins and Measures of Ceylon, T. W. Rhys Davids put forward an argument on rather different lines, as mentioned above. He interprets some of the information given in the oldest of the Ceylon chronicles in Pali, the Dipavamsain a way different both to the tradition of the chronicles and to the understanding of later scholarship. Partly because of the development of the consensus mentioned above and partly also because his interpretation of the Dipavamsawas based upon manuscript materials and seemed to be superseded by the editions and translations of Wilhlem Geiger, the views of Rhys Davids were subsequently disregarded.

His position depends upon the interpretation of the list of five Vinaya authorities prior to Mahinda in the third century B.C. as giving data on their ages at death rather than on their number of years as a monk. The latter interpretation gives the traditional 218 years down to the accession of Asoka i.e. the long chronology, but contains a number of problems. Indeed it has been generally recognized that a succession of five is too short for the long chronology. The alternative gives a shorter period of about 150 years.

Richard Combrich has now developed a similar theory, based upon the same proposition but with a more detailed and somewhat modified argumentation. In his version the accession of Asoka took place after 136 years. (I have elsewhere suggested some further minor changes. [note]) Gombrich's arguments have undoubtedly shown that the data in the Dipavamsaon the lineage of the teachers is impressively consistent when interpreted in this way. He is certainly right to argue that the lineage is a succession of teachers expert in the Vinaya and not a succession of individuals with some institutional authority. No doubt too he is correct in pointing out the existence of other lists of such teachers with different names, as found in various non-Pali sources, is in no way in contradiction. There would have been many such pedigrees for different pupil-teacher lines.

If the general arguments of the Rhys Davids-Gombrich thesis are correct, and they may well be, then the overall picture must be something like the following: when the creators of the Sinhala chronicle tradition attempted to work out a chronology, they had basically two sources of information for the period prior to Asoka. One was a lineage of teachers with ages at ordination and death. They must also have had some kind of brahmanical kinglist, of the sort preserved for us in various Puranas, perhaps derived from diplomatic links with North India. (We know from Megasthenes that such lists were current in Mauryan governing circles.) The long chronology as we have it is the result of combining the two sources with adjustments to make them fit.

 

 

Plausibly, then, the oldest Sinhala tradition is that of the lineage of teachers. How old is that? It may of course go back to the arrival of Buddhism in Ceylon in the third century B.C. and have then been compiled on the basis of information handed down intact from the time of the Buddha. Unfortunately, there is no way of proving that at present. Since the last book of the Vinaya-pitakathe Parivaraor ``Appendix'' already gives the list of the teachers together with a list of subsequent Vinaya authorities in Ceylon which terminates around the first century B.C., it must be relatively early and may well have been current by that date i.e. by the time at which the Pali Canon was set into writing.

Most probably then it represents the oldest attempt at a dating known to us. It seem quite possible that Ceylon which was a major trading area around this period may have been one of the main centres of South Asian Buddhism during some periods after the end of the Mauryan dynasty. Indeed prior to the Kusanas Anuradhapura and the Sunga and Satavahana capital of Vidisa (with which the Buddhism of Ceylon appears to have had some links) were quite possibly the two chief focal points of Buddhist activity for a while. If so, it is not at all surprising that the Sinhala texts should preserve earlier Buddhist traditions linked to the dynasties of North and Central India. Heinz Bechert, however, takes a rather different view.

5 Bechert's arguments

These two volumes contain around 66 pages of editorial material and substantial contributions from Bechert; so his views are quite well represented. A part of his argument is simply to make the point that the former general acceptance of the (revised) long chronology is a thing of the past. This is clearly the case.

In a different area, however, it seems to me that his position is more debatable. He writes:

I am also convinced that the ``short chronology'' represents the earliest Buddhist chronology found in our sources. This does not, however, imply that it represents reliable chronological information. (Symp. IV,1,8)

On the face of it this seems much more doubtful. Lewis Lancaster in his contribution points out that short chronology sources appear in Chinese translation from A.D. 306, while long chronology appears first in a text translated between 265-317. (Symp. IV,I, 455f.) Short chronology sources are more numerous, but since this simply reflects Sarvastivadin influence it does not take us much further.

The primary reason for Bechert's belief does appear to be his acceptance of the claim that there is evidence for the presence of the short chronology in ancient Ceylon, specifically in the Dipavamsa. I have elsewhere [note] argued that this is mistaken and must refer the reader there for the full arguments. In brief there are two passages which can be taken as supporting the short chronology (and many that do not.) The second of these (Dip V 55-9) concerns the prophecy of the arising of Moggaliputta Tissa ``in the future, in 118 years''. Bechert, and several predecessors, take the prophecy as by the Buddha. However, he does not take account of the parallel passages (Dhs-a 3-4; 6; Sp 35ff.) which make it clear that it is a prophecy given by the Elders of the Second Council. Indeed the fact that immediately after the prophecy the Dipavamsaitself refers to the death of those elders (V 60) makes it sufficiently certain that it is recounting the same story. The problem is perhaps a result of the insertion of a section on the history of the eighteen schools at the beginning of chapter five (i.e. vv. 1-54) immediately before the prophecy. This has separated verse 55 from the description of the second council at the end of chapter four.

Bechert is clearly mistaken in this case, but his second example is little more plausible. In a prophecy of the Buddha concerning the Third Council and the advent of Mahinda we meet the same figure of 118 years immediately after a mention of the First Council (Dip I 54-5). Most scholars have taken the view that there is a lacuna of some sort here and lines referring to the Second Council have dropped out. [note] This seems likely to be the case, since there is specific reference to the third council (tatiyo samgaho) - it does not seem very probably that anyone argued that the Third Council was only eighteen years after the Second which is traditionally dated to 100 B.C. or slightly later.

In any case, even if the text is taken as it stands, it would not prove Bechert's contention in the sense intended. He suggests that the passage in question could then derive from Sarvastivadin sources i.e. it would not be evidence of an independent Sinhala version of the short chronology.

6 In conclusion

It is clear that if the objective of these volumes was to find absolute proof as to the exact date of the Buddha, then they would have failed. No method or evidence we have at the present is sufficient to establish that to the strictest standards of evidence. What certainly has been done is a firmly dethrone the old consensus - it is not impossible that the long chronology may yet be rehabilitated, but someone will have to undertake the task. From the point of view of reasonable probability the evidence seems to favour some kind of median chronology and we should no doubt speak of a date for the Buddha's Mahaparinibbana of c.400 B.C - I choose the round number deliberately to indicate that the margins are rather loose.

It follows that the date of Mahavira and kings such as Pasenadi or Bimbisara must be correspondingly brought down, as they are part of the same historical context. Probably also the date of the Upanisads must be later and possible connexions with the Greek world must be rethought.

 

 

-- Love is a fruit in season at all times,

and within the reach of every hand.~:~ Mother Theresa ~:~

[Guest guest]

When Did The Buddha Live? : The Controversy on the Dating of the

Historical Buddha--Selected Papers Based on a Symposium held under

the Auspices of the Academy of Sciences in Gottingen/edited by Heinz

Bechert. 1995, 387 p.,

 

Contents: I. Introductory essay: 1. Introductory essay: the dates of

the historical Buddha--a controversial issue/Heinz Bechert. II.

History of research: 1. The dating of the historical Buddha in the

history of western scholarship up to 1980/Siglinde Dietz. 2.

Research on the date of the Buddha: South Asian studies published in

western languages/Jens-Uwe Hartmann. 3. Notes about the dates of

Gautama Buddha's Parinirvana in Hindi writings/Gustav Roth. 4. The

Buddhist era in the Malalankaravatthu/Heinz Braun. 5. Japanese

research on the date of the Buddha/Hajime Nakamura. III. Cultural

setting: 1. Archaeological research on ancient Buddhist

sites/Herbert Hartel. 2. Some considerations on the significance of

Buddha's date for the history of North India/Hermann Kulke. 3. The

historical background of the rise of Buddhism and the problem of

dating/Georg Von Simson. 4. The synchronism of the Buddha and the

Jina Mahavira and the problem of chronology in early

Jainism/Adelheid Mette. 5. Linguistic considerations on the date of

the Buddha/Oskar Von Hinuber. 6. Early Indian references to the

Greeks and the first encounters between Buddhism and the

west/Wilhelm Halbfass. 7. Some considerations concerning the problem

posed by the date of the Buddha's Parinirvana/Andre Bareau. 5. The

Puranic genealogies and the date of the Buddha/Heinrich Von

Stietencron. IV. Evaluation of the Indian and Theravada traditions.:

1. The dates of the Buddha and the origin and spread of the

Theravada chronology/Heinz Bechert. 2. Inscriptional sources for the

dating of the historical Buddha in India: the Bodh-Gaya inscription,

dated 1813 A.N./Cornelia Mallebrein. 3. The dating of the historical

Buddha in the Buddhist revival movement/Petra Kieffer-Pulz. V.

Central and East Asian traditions: 1. The date of the Buddha

according to Tantric texts/Gunter Gronbold. 2. Bu-ston on the date

of the Buddha's Nirvana, translated from his history of the doctrine

(Chos-'byun)/Claus Vogel. 3. On Chinese traditions concerning the

dates of the Buddha/Herbert Franke. 4. The birth and death years of

the Buddha in the Central Asian tradition/Klaus Rohrborn.

Bibliography/Heinz Bechert.

 

" From the beginning of modern indological research, the dates of the

Buddha have been recognized as having crucial importance for early

Indian history. A symposium on " the date of the historical Buddha

and the importance of its determination for historiography and world

history " was convened under the auspices of the academy of science

in Gottingen, Germany.

 

" The present volume represents an updated survey of the state of

research in this field which is based largely on the results

achieved at this symposium and incorporates some more recent

investigations. The present volume concentrates mainly on those

aspects which are directly relevant for the reconstruction of the

early history of Buddhist chronology as well as for the

understanding of related developments in India, in Sri Lanka, and in

the countries of southeast Asian Theravada tradition. The volume

contains papers by Heinz Bechert, Siglinde Dietz, Jens-Uwe Hartmann,

Gustav Roth, Heinz Braun, Hajime Nakamura, Herbert Hartel, Hermann

Kulke, Georg von Simson, Adelheid Mette, Oskar von Hinuber, Wilhelm

Halbfass, Andre Bareau Heinrich von Steitencron, Cornelia

Mallebrein, Petra-Kieffer-Pulz, Gunter Gronbold, Claus Vogel,

Herbert Franke, and Klaus Rohrborn. The volume contains an

exhaustive bibliography. " (jacket) No. 10723

 

https://www.vedamsbooks.com/10723.htm

[Guest guest]

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MISC/misc115791.htm

A Discussion on the Determination of the Date of the Historical

Buddha

Choong, Mun-keat (Wei-keat)Journal of Indian History

Vol. LXXVI-LXXVIII, 1997-1999

March, 2004

Copyright 2004 by University of Kerala

______

INTRODUCTION

Chronologically accurate records for early Indian history are

evidently lacking. Consequently, the date of the historical Buddha

remains difficult to conclude exactly, though it has been the

subject of much scholarly discussion. (note 1) Contemporary scholars

in Asia and the West have suggested various dates that differ from

the traditional Sinhalese/Theravaadin dates of 624-544 BCE; for

example:

466 - 386 BCE (UI Hakuju) 463 - 383 BCE (NAKAMURA Hajime) 448 - 368

BCE (Heinz BECHERT) 500/460 - 420/380 BCE (Andre BAREAU) 502/479 -

422/399 BCE (Richard GOMBRICH)

The reasoning and evidence used in calculating these dates are

diverse and are not always conclusive or convincing. One viable

method entails reckoning from the year of the coronation or

accession of the emperor A " soka, and this is the approach I adopt

here. I consider that A " soka's coronation date has now been

established fairly accurately. This facilitates the determination of

the date of the Buddha because in Buddhist traditions the coronation

of A " soka is stated to have taken place so many years after the

Buddha's death (Parinirvaa.na). Further, it is known that the

lifetime of the Buddha lasted eighty years. Based on these shared

records in Buddhist traditions and the information provided by

modern Indological research on the coronation date of A " soka, one is

able to infer the date of the Buddha, though still with some

questions remaining. The following analysis will discuss three

possible dates of the Buddha based on this method.

THREE POSSIBLE DATES

In research on the coronation date of A " soka there remain minor

differences of opinion amounting to two or three years. Without

entering into the debate, I adopt here the generally accepted

coronation date of circa 268 BCE: A " soka reigned c. 268-232 BCE.

(note 2) As to how many years after the death of the Buddha A " soka's

coronation took place, Buddhist records representing the most

ancient traditions indicate three different figures: 218 years, 116

years, and 160 years. (note 3) These figures are found in sources

representing the Sinhalese, Sarvaastivaadin, and Tibetan traditions,

as follows.

1. Based on 218 years

According to the Sinhalese tradition, A " soka was crowned in the year

218 after the death of the Buddha. For instance, BUDDHAGHOSA in his

Samantapaasaadikaa commentary on the Pali Vinaya (fifth century CE)

states:

" Two hundred and eighteen years after the death of the Tathaagata

the self-inaugurated king (i.e. A " soka) ruled over the whole of

Jambudiipa (India) (Tathaagatassa parinibbaanato dvinna.m

vassasataana.m upari a.t.thaarasame vasse sakala-Jambudiipe

ekarajjaabhiseka.m paapu.ni). " (note 4)

Taking the coronation date of A " soka as 268 BCE, this makes the date

of the Buddha's death 268 + 218 = 486 BCE. (note 5)

2. Based on 116 years

The Sarvaastivaada tradition on this issue is represented in two

texts, both written by Vasumitra (c. 100-200 CE) and translated by

Paramaartha (499-569 CE): Shibabu-lun [Treatise on the Eighteen

Sects] and Buzhiyi-lun [Treatise on the Sects]. According to these

two texts, as recorded in the Taisho edition of the Chinese

Tripi.taka, A " soka was crowned 116 years after the death of the

Buddha.(note 6) For example, Buzhiyi-lun states:

" One hundred and sixteen years after the death of Bhagavant

Buddha ... there was a great country called Paataliputra whose king

named A " soka ruled over Jambudviipa. " (note 7)

Applying the figure of 116, as above, places the Buddha's death in

384 BCE.

3. Based on 160 years

As presented in the Song, Yuan, Ming, and Qing dynasty editions of

the Chinese Tripi.taka, the Buzhiyi-lun gives the coronation of

A " soka as 160 years after the death of the Buddha.(note 8) However,

the Shibabu-lun in those same editions has 116 years, thus agreeing

with the Taisho edition. The same ambiguity is found in Sde-pa tha-

dad-par byed-pa da " n rnam-par b " sad-pa, the Tibetan translation of

BHAVYA's Nikaayabheda-vibha " nga-vyaakhyaa [Treatise on the Schisms].

(note 9) It gives the figure of 160 years in some editions of the

Tibetan canon and 116 years in other editions. For example,

according to BAREAU's translation, the Narthang (1741-42 CE) and

Peking (1724 CE) editions have the following statement:

" One hundred and sixty years (lo-brgya-drug-cu) (note 10) having

passed since the parinirvaa.na of the Blessed Buddha, at the time

when the king named Dharmaa " soka ruled in the town called

Kusumapura, there developed a great dissension in the Sangha as a

consequence of the appearance of various points of controversy. "

(note 11)

However, according to WATANABE's translation, the Derge edition

(1744 CE) has 116 years. (note 12) The figure of 160 years places

the Buddha's death in 428 BCE.

CONCLUSION

This paper has proposed dates based on the following points:

- The coronation date of the emperor A " soka was c. 268 BCE (on this

scholars still have minor differences of opinion).

- The number of years between the death of the Buddha and the

coronation of A " soka, as recorded in Buddhist traditions, is:

218 years (Sinhalese tradition), 116 years (Sarvaastivaada

tradition, some editions), or 160 years (Sarvaastivaada tradition,

other editions)

- The lifetime of the Buddha was eighty years.

- Hence, the possible dates for the Buddha's lifetime are: (1) c.

566-486, (2) c. 464-384, and (3) c. 508-428.

- There is no sure basis for choosing among these three.

In his review article of volumes 1 and 2 of BECHERT's three-volume

report (1991, 1992, 1997), COUSINS states:

" It is clear that if the objective of these volumes was to find

absolute proof as to the exact date of the Buddha, then they would

have failed. No method or evidence we have at the present is

sufficient to establish that to the strictest standards of evidence.

What certainly has been done is to firmly dethrone the old

consensus - it is not impossible that the long chronology (note 13)

may yet be rehabilitated, but someone will have to undertake the

task. From the point of view of reasonable probability the evidence

seems to favour some kind of median chronology and we should no

doubt speak of a date for the Buddha's Mahaparinibbana (note 14) of

c. 400 B.C. - I choose the round number deliberately to indicate

that the margins are rather loose. " (note 15)

I consider, however, that the three dates proposed above are all

possible, because they conform closely to ancient Buddhist

traditions regarding the number of years between the death of the

Buddha and the coronation of A " soka.

NOTES:

1 Cf. Etienne LAMOTTE, " The Date of the Buddha " , History of Indian

Buddhism: From the Origins to the Saka Era (tr. Sara WEBB-BOIN)

(1958; Institut Orientaliste de l'Universite Catholique de Louvain,

Louvain-la-Neuve, 1988), pp. 13-14; Heinz BECHERT, " The Problem of

the Determination of the Date of the Historical Buddha " , Wiener

Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Sudasiens, vol. 33 (1989), pp. 93-120;

(ed.), The Dating of the Historical Buddha. Die Datierung des

Historischen Buddha, 3 vols. (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Gottingen,

1991-2, 1997); and When Did the Buddha Live? The Controversy on the

Dating of the Historical Buddha (Selected Papers Based on a

Symposium Held under the Auspices of the Academy of Sciences in

Gottingen; Biblotheca Indo-Buddhica Series, No. 165) (Sri Satguru

Publications, Delhi, 1995); Hajime NAKAMURA, Indian Buddhism: A

Survey with Bibliographical Notes (Japan, 1980; reprinted Motilal

Banarsidass, Delhi, 1989), pp. 13-14; YIN SHUN, Yindu Fojiao Sixiang

Shi [A History of the Thought of Indian Buddhism] (1988; Zhengwen

Chubanshe, Taipei, 1993), pp. 8-9; Lance S. COUSINS, " The Dating of

the Historical Buddha: A review article " (of BECHERT, 1991-2). See

Indology website (www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/indology.html):

www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/buddha/buddha.html (1997);

originally published in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Series

3, 6.1 (1996), pp. 57-63.

2 For example, NAKAMURA, pp. 91, 93-94. Other coronation dates of

A " soka proposed by various scholars range from 280 to 267 BCE.

3 Records of the coronation of A " soka as taking place 100 years

after the death of the Buddha are here considered as relatively late

legendary documents (for the sources, see LAMOTTE, pp. 13-14).

Also, " 100 " in Indian texts is often not used to indicate an exact

number; thus " 100 years " may signify an indefinite lengthy period of

time.

4 Samantapaasaadikaa, I, pp. 41-42 (cf. Taisho edition of Chinese

Tripi.taka (abbreviated T) vol. 24, No. 1462, p. 679c); Diipava.msa,

VI, pp. 1, 19-20; Mahaava.msa, V, p. 21.

5 It has been pointed out that the Sinhalese (Theravaada) tradition

was the basis for the chronology of the Dotted Record. BECHERT

(1989), pp. 101-2.

6 T 49, No. 2032, p. 18a; T 49, No. 2033, p. 20a.

7 T 49 No. 2033, p. 20a.

8 E.g. T 49, No. 2033, p. 20, note 7; Qian-long (Qing dynasty) vol.

102, No. 14, p. 468.

9 Compiled by BHAVYA in 6th century CE.

10 Peking (Beijing) edition of Tibetan Tripi.taka, vol. 127, No.

5640, p. 253, leaf 1, line 3.

11 Andre BAREAU, " Trois traites sur les sectes bouddhiques attribues

a Vasumitra, Bhavya et Vinitadeva: Deuxieme partie " , Journal

asiatique 244 (1956), pp. 167-8. This is a French translation of

BHAVYA's work. Cf. BECHERT (1989), pp. 107-8.

12 WATANABE Zuigan's Japanese translation, Osaki Gakuho, No. 94

(July 1939), p. 71, note 1.

13 Referring to the chronology based on the Sinhalese tradition.

14 Referring to the death of the Buddha.

15 See note 1, above.

REFERENCES:

1. Primary Sources:

Taisho edition of Chinese Tripi.taka: vols. 24, 49, 55, No. 1462,

No. 2032, 2033 (= Qian-long (Qing dynasty) Tripi.taka: No. 14, vol.

102, pp. 468-476), and No. 2149.

Pali Text Society edition: Samantapaasaadikaa, Diipava.msa, and

Mahaava.msa.

Peking (Beijing) edition of Tibetan Tripi.taka: vol. 127, No. 5640

(pp. 253-257).

2. Modern Works:

Bechert, Heinz, " The Problem of the Determination of the Date of the

Historical Buddha " , Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Sudasiens, vol.

33 (1989), pp. 93-120.

----- (ed.), The Dating of the Historical Buddha. Die Datierung des

Historischen Buddha, 3 vols. (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Gottingen,

1991-2, 1997).

----- (ed.), When Did the Buddha Live? The Controversy on the Dating

of the Historical Buddha (Selected Papers Based on a Symposium Held

under the Auspices of the Academy of Sciences in Gottingen;

Biblotheca Indo-Buddhica Series, No. 165) (Sri Satguru Publications,

Delhi, 1995).

Bareau, Andre, " Trois traites sur les sectes bouddhiques attribues a

Vasumitra, Bhavya et Vinitadeva: Deuxieme partie " , Journal asiatique

244 (1956), pp. 167-191. This is an annotated French translation of

the Tibetan text of Bhavya's Nikaayabheda-vibha " nga-vyaakhyaa.

Cousins, Lance, S., " The Dating of the Historical Buddha: A review

article " (of Bechert, 1991-2). See Indology website

(www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/indology.html):

www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/buddha/buddha.html (1997);

originally published in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Series

3, 6.1 (1996), pp. 57-63.

Foguang Dacidian [Foguang Great Dictionary], 8 vols. (Foguang

Publisher, Kao-hsiung, 1988).

Gronbold, Gunter, Der buddhistische Kanon: eine Bibliographie

(Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden, 1984).

Lamotte, Etienne, History of Indian Buddhism: From the Origins to

the Saka Era (tr. Sara WEBB-BOIN) (1958; Institut Orientaliste de

l'Universite Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1988).

Nakamura, Hajime, Indian Buddhism: A Survey with Bibliographical

Notes (Japan, 1980; reprinted Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1989).

Watanabe, Zuigan, [Annotated Translation of the Tibetan text,

Nikaayabheda-vibha " nga-vyaakhyaa of Bhavya], Osaki Gakuho, No. 94

(July 1939), pp. 70-91.

Yin Shun, Yindu Fojiao Sixiang Shi [A History of the Thought of

Indian Buddhism] (1988; Zhengwen Chubanshe, Taipei, 1993).

[Guest guest]

This book is published in India by Sri Satguru Publications.a division of Indian Books Centre.Delhi., in Bibliotheca Indo-Buddhica Series. indianbookscentre

 

 

-

Kishore patnaik

Thursday, February 14, 2008 5:24 PM

Re: The Dating of the Historical Buddha: A Review Article by LL cousins

When Did The Buddha Live? : The Controversy on the Dating of the Historical Buddha--Selected Papers Based on a Symposium held under the Auspices of the Academy of Sciences in Gottingen/edited by Heinz Bechert. 1995, 387 p.,Contents: I. Introductory essay: 1. Introductory essay: the dates of the historical Buddha--a controversial issue/Heinz Bechert. II. History of research: 1. The dating of the historical Buddha in the history of western scholarship up to 1980/Siglinde Dietz. 2. Research on the date of the Buddha: South Asian studies published in western languages/Jens-Uwe Hartmann. 3. Notes about the dates of Gautama Buddha's Parinirvana in Hindi writings/Gustav Roth. 4. The Buddhist era in the Malalankaravatthu/Heinz Braun. 5. Japanese research on the date of the Buddha/Hajime Nakamura. III. Cultural setting: 1. Archaeological research on ancient Buddhist sites/Herbert Hartel. 2. Some considerations on the significance of Buddha's date for the history of North India/Hermann Kulke. 3. The historical background of the rise of Buddhism and the problem of dating/Georg Von Simson. 4. The synchronism of the Buddha and the Jina Mahavira and the problem of chronology in early Jainism/Adelheid Mette. 5. Linguistic considerations on the date of the Buddha/Oskar Von Hinuber. 6. Early Indian references to the Greeks and the first encounters between Buddhism and the west/Wilhelm Halbfass. 7. Some considerations concerning the problem posed by the date of the Buddha's Parinirvana/Andre Bareau. 5. The Puranic genealogies and the date of the Buddha/Heinrich Von Stietencron. IV. Evaluation of the Indian and Theravada traditions.: 1. The dates of the Buddha and the origin and spread of the Theravada chronology/Heinz Bechert. 2. Inscriptional sources for the dating of the historical Buddha in India: the Bodh-Gaya inscription, dated 1813 A.N./Cornelia Mallebrein. 3. The dating of the historical Buddha in the Buddhist revival movement/Petra Kieffer-Pulz. V. Central and East Asian traditions: 1. The date of the Buddha according to Tantric texts/Gunter Gronbold. 2. Bu-ston on the date of the Buddha's Nirvana, translated from his history of the doctrine (Chos-'byun)/Claus Vogel. 3. On Chinese traditions concerning the dates of the Buddha/Herbert Franke. 4. The birth and death years of the Buddha in the Central Asian tradition/Klaus Rohrborn. Bibliography/Heinz Bechert."From the beginning of modern indological research, the dates of the Buddha have been recognized as having crucial importance for early Indian history. A symposium on "the date of the historical Buddha and the importance of its determination for historiography and world history" was convened under the auspices of the academy of science in Gottingen, Germany."The present volume represents an updated survey of the state of research in this field which is based largely on the results achieved at this symposium and incorporates some more recent investigations. The present volume concentrates mainly on those aspects which are directly relevant for the reconstruction of the early history of Buddhist chronology as well as for the understanding of related developments in India, in Sri Lanka, and in the countries of southeast Asian Theravada tradition. The volume contains papers by Heinz Bechert, Siglinde Dietz, Jens-Uwe Hartmann, Gustav Roth, Heinz Braun, Hajime Nakamura, Herbert Hartel, Hermann Kulke, Georg von Simson, Adelheid Mette, Oskar von Hinuber, Wilhelm Halbfass, Andre Bareau Heinrich von Steitencron, Cornelia Mallebrein, Petra-Kieffer-Pulz, Gunter Gronbold, Claus Vogel, Herbert Franke, and Klaus Rohrborn. The volume contains an exhaustive bibliography." (jacket) No. 10723 https://www.vedamsbooks.com/10723.htm