When was the Buddha born?

When was the Buddha most likely born?


  • Total voters
    5
Mar 2012
4,411
#11
your logic and dating simply doesnt make any sense, as far as indic history is concerned, the jain tradition also dates mahavira contemporary to buddha, and the date is 527 BC, so the theravada date does agree with the jain date, jain traditions have got mark of authenticity since their texts also agree with the greek sources on Nanda empire, Jain tradition also dates nanda empire beginning to 467 BCE. this is agreed with a separate independent source like puranas as well and not to mention sri harsha date and other dates which have been inscribed on indian inscriptions for the Nandas.

to propose that the nandas and the shisunagas were contemporaries is simply hilarious and not having any grasp on the indian history in the first place. its like suggesting nandas and the mauryas were also contemporaries which will be a big comedy as well. its like han, qin, tang and song were all contemporaries, you are using the very same logic.
The dating I cited is standard Buddhology; virtually no Buddhologist today follows the southern tradition described in the Dipamvamsa and Mahavamsa. Unlike the Buddhist tradition, Jain dating is not historically verified by contemporary primary sources. I ask you again, where are the passages in your so called sources that mentions a different chronology from the Buddhist one, because Buddhist chronology is all we have to work with in regard to the details of pre-Mauryan kingship.
The Han and Qin are chronologically organized in the Shiji, Han Shu, and a variety of contemporary primary sources, the Nandas and Shisunagas aren't. If you are at all familiar with the historical traditions of either era, you'll know the blatantly obvious difference.


if the stupa is not buddhist one, what is any other explanation? what religion can a stupa signify if not buddhism? if stupa represents any prior religion, can you state the information regarding that religion? i dont think so, so the best possible explanation of stupa at nalanda is buddhism, not to mention that buddhist stupas and sacred buildings are always oriented towards a specific direction and constructed in a specific way, so if the stupa is not buddhist one, it would show in the research for the stupa itself, which im not aware of it actually has, there is also the dating of mayadevi temple which again confirms the theravada dating as well, again the most probable explanation of mayadevi temple is its buddhist affiliation, there simply isnt any other explanation, this is a thorough archaeological research done by imminent archaeologists.
Does the stupa have the word "Buddhism" or anything associated with it on it? No. Then there are plenty of other explanations. Qigong practices for example are typically associated with Daoism, but we have Zhou era inscriptions and the Daodejing itself hinting that the practice dates before Laozi, simply having a stupa does not conclusively prove anything in regard to the date of the Buddha without anything else to support it.

the rest of the late dating crap is not surprising, the archaeology keeps pushing the date back, whereas the western scholars refuse to simply entertain archaeological date and keep pushing the date forward just because of their eurocentric colonial predetermined disposition of late dating indian history and doubting it and nothing else. A prime example is keep pushing late dating for indian coins, late dating for Kausambi fortifications, the carbon dating conducted on sites like sisupalgarh and reliquaries like Bimaran casquet have infact pushed the dates backwards not forwards. The western stubborness to disregard archaeology and its dating is without a doubt based more on their agenda then anything else.
No offense, but you need to grasp the basic methodology behind Buddhologist dating before you comment whether its crap or not, because you obviously have no clue. You have a single unwritten stupa that is found from the 6th century, whereas the earliest Buddhist textual references to the Buddha all states that the Buddha lived somewhat over 100 years before Ashoka; proving that the Buddha is someone who lived mostly in the 5th century BC, not the 6th. Unwritten archeology do not prove kingship chronology, only general existence of civilizations.
 
Mar 2019
1,535
KL
#12
The dating I cited is standard Buddhology; virtually no Buddhologist today follows the southern tradition described in the Dipamvamsa and Mahavamsa. Unlike the Buddhist tradition, Jain dating is not historically verified by contemporary primary sources. I ask you again, where are the passages in your so called sources that mentions a different chronology from the Buddhist one, because Buddhist chronology is all we have to work with in regard to the details of pre-Mauryan kingship.
The Han and Qin are chronologically organized in the Shiji, Han Shu, and a variety of contemporary primary sources, the Nandas and Shisunagas aren't. If you are at all familiar with the historical traditions of either era, you'll know the blatantly obvious difference.
the logic as i stated which you are using for the shishunagas and the nandas being contemporary is the same as making qin, han all your chinese dynasties contemporary, im not interested what is your chronology etc, but the issue is your illogical approach of putting two indian magadhan dynasties as ''contemporary'' which goes against the common sense, and the need for euro and chinese ''monks'' is obviously agenda based, chinese monks need to make their own literature as most ''authentic'' same goes to euro scholars who need to put indian history as close to the greek arrival as possible.

how does the buddha dating conform to the nandas, the mahavira etc still doesnt get addressed, obvious solution is to mess all the chronology of all indian history and put it side by side the greco roman chronology.

as i stated there are atleast six indic sources and one foreign source all of which verify the traditional chronology, not to mention the archaeology.

again, if the stupa is not buddhist stupa, which religion does it belong to, can you name the tradition or the religion?, please dont bring your usual chinese crap in the indian history, as it doesnt hold the same relevance.

the late dating can be accepted, but then, what ''reliable source'' backs it up, the only ''reliable source'' i see is european scholars insisting on some second hand chinese source and some srilankan source while completely disregarding the puranic, buddhist, jain sources as bad sources even though jain sources have infact been accepted for its matching details with greek sources on nandas, not to mention the the dates mentioned in prominent inscriptions and literature, it seems more like european late dating agenda then anything else. the onl reason why europeans insisting on 400 BC rather than 373 BC is how they would logically fit the magadhan dynasties of which the only way as your monk stated is to fit them as contemporaries.

i can produce several references on the european zeal for late dating indian history and all the agenda is to put it close to the greek arrival and nothing else dear. the only way you do it is to shove all indian dynasties and declare them as contemporary.

regards
 
Last edited:
Likes: Pandit
Mar 2012
4,411
#13
the logic as i stated which you are using for the shishunagas and the nandas being contemporary is the same as making qin, han all your chinese dynasties contemporary, im not interested what is your chronology etc, but the issue is your illogical approach of putting two indian magadhan dynasties as ''contemporary'' which goes against the common sense, and the need for euro and chinese ''monks'' is obviously agenda based, chinese monks need to make their own literature as most ''authentic'' same goes to euro scholars who need to put indian history as close to the greek arrival as possible.

The logic is obviously different, because the former doesn't have multiple primary sources to work on, and the Buddhist chronology is all we have, whereas the later have multiple primary sources that could be cross-checked.
There are multiple Chinese historical records kept by different states, and by different schools of thought, not one, and they do not always match (the bamboo annals and the Shiji for example, differ in chronology for timeline before 842). While the datings match after 842, the unfolding of historical events also differ in different sources. The Zuozhuan for example mentions the Jin winning in the struggle for hegemony in 482 BC, while the Guoyu mentioned the Wu winning, both sources are either primary or near primary (pre-3rd century BC) and since they record different outcomes of a single historical event, they were clearly two independent sources.
I don't even know what you mean by Chinese "monks" or "agenda", Chinese sources are usually state kept chronology in archives written by professional state historians, not monks. There isn't even a single history tradition, in fact, pre-Han sources aren't even concerned about any literature outside of "China", nor were they aware they existed. There is hence no incentive or agenda to "show" anyone imaginary; stop projecting modern nationalist nonsense onto ancient historiography.
Whether shishunagas and nandas are contemporary is not verified by primary sources (even Buddhist chronology are later sources), so you can't use that as a prove, when it is the very topic we are debating over. Once again, you still cannot show me any early source other than Buddhist chronologies that existed at the time.

how does the buddha dating conform to the nandas, the mahavira etc still doesnt get addressed, obvious solution is to mess all the chronology of all indian history and put it side by side the greco roman chronology.

as i stated there are atleast six indic sources and one foreign source all of which verify the traditional chronology, not to mention the archaeology.
You are not understanding the argument. Whether the Nandas existed contemporary to Shishunaga is not recorded in any sources outside of Buddhism in the ancient period. If you say otherwise, show me the quote of such a chronology (and Jain sources come much later).

again, if the stupa is not buddhist stupa, which religion does it belong to, can you name the tradition or the religion?, please dont bring your usual chinese crap in the indian history, as it doesnt hold the same relevance.
You brought up Chinese crap in the first place, so don't give me the lame double standard.
Bringing comparative examples is a methodology, you might want to learn a thing or two before claiming what is relevant; that and you might want to read up basic historical records, because you clearly don't even know what the Buddhist sources I cited are, or what the sources you raised yourself contain.

the late dating can be accepted, but then, what ''reliable source'' backs it up, the only ''reliable source'' i see is european scholars insisting on some second hand chinese source and some srilankan source while completely disregarding the puranic, buddhist, jain sources as bad sources even though jain sources have infact been accepted for its matching details with greek sources on nandas, not to mention the the dates mentioned in prominent inscriptions and literature, it seems more like european late dating agenda then anything else. the onl reason why europeans insisting on 400 BC rather than 373 BC is how they would logically fit the magadhan dynasties of which the only way as your monk stated is to fit them as contemporaries.

i can produce several references on the european zeal for late dating indian history and all the agenda is to put it close to the greek arrival and nothing else dear. the only way you do it is to shove all indian dynasties and declare them as contemporary.

regards
Facepalm. I've already posted the sources in detail twice. You are just not reading (or have the basic academic competence to comprehend what you've read). You clearly don't have a basic understanding of the sources at hand to even discuss the topic.
The Ashokavadana is not a "second hand Chinese source" (the fact that you think it was emphatically proved that you don't even understand what sources I used), it is a Western Jin era (280-316 CE) translation of a Sanskrit text that was composed since the 1st century AD, and since Chinese canonized the Buddhist scriptures, it is currently older than any Sanskrit text avaliable on the subject. All the sources you've mentioned dates after that or mentions no chronology at all. If you say otherwise, cite it or stop wasting our time with the "agenda" rant.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2012
4,411
#14
again, if the stupa is not buddhist stupa, which religion does it belong to, can you name the tradition or the religion?

That stupas probably have pre-Buddhist origins as simple burial mounds for kings is in fact a common knowledge. For example see The Symbolism of the Early Stupa by Peter Harvey
The Mahaparinibbana Sutta also recorded the fact that the Buddha himself said he wanted to be buried in a stupa; showing that the tradition was already common by his time and was not created by him.
 

Similar History Discussions