Archaeological Discoveries Confirm Early Date of Buddha's Life

www.sciencedaily.com...

Archaeological Discoveries Confirm Early Date of Buddha's Life

Archaeologists working in Nepal have uncovered evidence of a structure at the birthplace of the Buddha dating to the sixth century B.C. This is the first archaeological material linking the life of the Buddha -- and thus the first flowering of Buddhism.

That's a fascinating article. It's amazing that the site has persisted for so long, while whole civilizations rose and fell.

reply to post by stormcell


And so it begins....

I just never know what to think about this kind of thing. The Buddha himself would probably consider it to be a huge waste of time to dig around and try to find buildings associated with himself or his birth. He would probably tell these people that his words are the important thing, and not his image or his remnants. But people will apparently always hang onto their statutes and diggings and other physical things in some effort to provide them with answers, even though the answers have already been provided to them.

So I guess, good luck dirt diggers, if that's what makes you happy. And so too all the chanters and those who fixate on images and statutes. Whatever.

reply to post by Blue Shift


Except, as I am sure you agree, Gautama Buddha would not believe a dirt digger could be happy digging dirt.

Interesting article. I am typically unsure about religious based archaeology. Even if Buddhism is not really a religion.

Isn't it a tad odd, that BOTH CHRIST AND BUDDHA walked the earth at the same time.......

"And so it begins".....is this what it meant?

reply to post by Unity_99


A five hundred year gap...isn't exactly the same time.

And so 'what' begins?

Unity_99
Isn't it a tad odd, that BOTH CHRIST AND BUDDHA walked the earth at the same time.......

"And so it begins".....is this what it meant?

edit on 27-11-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

Unless Jesus was on a long walk none of us knew about, he was about 600 plus years later.

"And so it begins..." was just something that popped into my head, it has no meaning except that which others want to place on it because I have no idea myself, just sounded good for this page. lol now as I did then writing it.

As far as I know few doubted Buddha existed, as I think he had a fairly good lineage of followers from the time. This new find is nice though, it'd be fun to see what kind of place he lived in before wandering off.

The remains of a wooden shrine that may have contained a tree have been found beneath the foundations of a Buddhist temple built on the site in Nepal where Siddharta Gautama was allegedly born.

I am familiar with the legend of the Buddha's birth, but I cannot see how this discovery proves either the historicity of the Buddha or provides any indication of when, if ever, he was born. All it proves is that the site, and possibly a tree that once grew on it, have been venerated for a very long time. Tree-worship is, indeed, very ancient and widespread.

It seems to me a great deal of wishful thinking is being applied here.

Astyanax
It seems to me a great deal of wishful thinking is being applied here.

Agreed. Even if they dug up a big sign, "BUDDHA BORN HERE," it could just be a big lie. Something to bring in the tourists. Even if they dug up Buddha's corpse and ran a DNA test on him, they still couldn't say for sure that it was actually him, and that he actually did and said the things in the history.

Like I say, you kind of get the idea that they're missing the point.

Whether it's his birthplace or a shrine re-purposed, that's not really the point.

It just helps confirm the dates Buddha was alive--the 6th century BC.

reply to post by Chamberf=6

It just helps confirm the dates Buddha was alive--the 6th century BC.

How do you get that? You're not someone I'd call naïve — surely you must be aware that sites often remain sacred through time though the religion that sanctifies them may change. Many churches are built on the sites of ancient pagan shrines. Many mosques in India are built on the ruins of Hindu shrines, and vice versa. Roman Catholic churches in my country were often erected after the razing of a local temple that formerly stood on the same spot. This is a very common phenomenon. Some sacred sites are shared by several religions: there's one in my country that is a place of pilgrimage for Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims. And surely everyone knows this of Jerusalem: that at least three world religions regard the city as sacred.

There is nothing, apart from the story that Maya held on to a tree while giving birth to Gautama, to suggest that the tree-shrine under the Lumbini Vihara has anything to do with Buddhism. And that story is a commonplace attributed to saviours everywhere; in the Q'uran, Mary is said to have given birth to Jesus while leaning against a palm tree. And for those who know their folk music, the ancient ballad called The Greenwood Side (also titled The Cruel Mother) contains the lines

She leaned her back against a thorn
And there she had two little babes born

In my opinion, the Buddha was probably born no earlier than the fourth century BC. Judging by the scanty historical information we have, it seems most likely that he was born after Alexander's invasion of India, in a city-state founded by one of his generals, or influenced at any rate by Greek ideas and philosophy.

reply to post by Astyanax

I don't see how anything Islamic has relevance besides the re-use of buildings for it.

Do you dispute when Buddha lived?

Under it all is the dating of the site, the history of followers, and if it was a re-purposed Hindu site that does nothing to dispute the time Buddha lived or that is an ancient Buddhist shrine.

A council was convened 3 months after his death of 500 followers and the first records of his life were began at the first Buddhist council in 480 BC.. The date of this also confirms the dates he lived.

reply to post by Chamberf=6

I don't see how anything Islamic has relevance besides the re-use of buildings for it.

The point is that it is the place that is sacred: the entity worshipped, honoured or propitiated there can change as the shrine changes hands over time, but the site retains its sanctity regardless. So the tree-shrine found beneath the Lumbini Vihare need by no means be connected with Buddhism or the Buddha.

Do you dispute when Buddha lived?

Indeed I do, because it is a matter much disputed. The Theravada Buddhists among whom I live say he died in 543BC; they reach this figure by adding up the reigns of the kings of Sri Lanka based on the evidence of a mythohistorical book called the Mahavamsa. But the dating of pre-Asokan Sinhalese kings is thought to have been artificially manipulated in the Mahavamsa to agree with this date. Incidentally, if this date were true it would mean that the recently discovered shrine dates from around the time of Gautama's demise. Which, of course, proves nothing.

A council was convened 3 months after his death of 500 followers and the first records of his life were began at the first Buddhist council in 480 BC. The date of this also confirms the dates he lived.

Unfortunately, those accounts were orally transmitted (or existed only in long-lost fragments) until 29BC, when they were finally written down.

There is no agreement among the different schools of Buddhism as to when Gautama lived, taught and died.

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...

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... 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. The era they preserve places the Buddha's Mahaparinibbana in 543 B.C.

midicon
reply to post by Unity_99

 

A five hundred year gap...isn't exactly the same time.

And so 'what' begins?

edit on 27-11-2013 by midicon because: (no reason given)

6 BC is not a 500 year gap. And the purpose of the article is that their real findings put their discovery centuries before what was previously thought, putting one of the Budda's in the time period of Christ.

Since there are stories of Christ surviving the crucifixion and going to India and Tibet....have to suggest that they are the same person.

reply to post by Unity_99


See my post above yours for various datings of the Buddha's demise. You're getting 6BC and 6th century BC mixed up.

reply to post by Unity_99


Jesus was born 1AD, Jesus was crucified in 33AD we know this because the bible says multiple times that Pilate was in office during his crucifixion and it was during the passover.

by the way AD means Anno Domini meaning "Year of The Lord"

reply to post by Aleister

...Unless Jesus was on a long walk none of us knew about, he was about 600 plus years later.

Buddha presumed to been born 623 BCE lived 80 years...ergo passed away ~ 543 BCE

in a type of mirror repeat.. Muhammad ...The oldest Qur'an fragments date to around 725 A.D. - a century after they were first recited.


SO in that 1000 year era... Buddha then Muhammad founded 2 great spiritual followings- transformational thought