The dating of the historical Buddha: a review article (original) (raw)
Related papers
Research on the Date of the Buddha
1991
Edited by HEINZ BECHERT VANDENHOECK & RUPRECHT IN GÖTTINGEN 1991 Contents Introductory Essay: The Scope of the Symposium and the Question of Methodology, by HEINZ BECHERT 1. The Dates of the Buddha-a Controversial Issue 1 2. Reviewing the History of Research 9 3. Evidence Derived from the Context of Indian Cultural History 10 4. Different Evaluations of the Evidence 13 5. The Origin and Spread of the Various Traditional Buddha Chronologies 15 6. Chiliasm in Buddhist Traditions 18 7. The Dates of the Buddha in Historical Speculation 19 8. Documents and Bibliography 20 9. Concluding Remarks 20
From the 'ABC of Indian Chronology' : Buddha's epoch (April 17, 2021)
The parinirvāṇa of Gautama Buddha is a milestone of singular consequence in Indic chronology, serving as the landmark for dating most events which compose the timeline of our history. In this paper, the authors use astronomical methods to comprehensively compile, analyse, define constraints and determine the unique solution which meets the criteria considered for the most probable year for the death of Buddha. Subsequently, in light of recent archaeological evidence, not only do we demonstrate how key archaeology-related conclusions in Heinz Bechert edited 'When did the Buddha live?' are acutely less tenable in 2019, but also deduce and propose a terminus ante quem (546 B.C.) for Buddha's death. Thereafter, in the philology section, through a critical synoptic analysis we identify problematics that, in our assessment, vitiate the so-called corrected long chronology, short chronology and Bechert's proposal. We believe this paper addresses a crucial void in the post-1995 literature pertaining to Buddha's chronological epoch in being perhaps the first substantive critical assessment of some aspects of the Bechert volume, from an Indic lens, underpinned by a scientific approach.
On Historical Methods in Buddhist Studies and the Disputed Historicity of the Buddha
2023
In this article, I compare and contrast two approaches to the historicity of the Buddha. On one hand, normative historical methods support Drewes (2017) in his contention that the term "historical Buddha" is incoherent. If the Buddha did live and die 200 years before the advent of writing in India and 400 years before the Pāli Canon was written down, then the term "historical" simply does not apply. On the other hand, a group of philologists-Hinüber (2019), Levman (2019), and Wynne (2019)-claim to be able to break through this epistemic barrier and to reliably infer historical facts about the fifth century BCE from documents written between 200 and 1000 years later. I try to explain why philologists might think in these terms and why this approach, long repudiated by historians, cannot do what they want it to do. I was going to try to get this published, but I've lost faith in the process.
Abstract: Buddha is considered to be the 'founder of Buddhism'. Buddha is a historical person— historical Buddha. Buddhism is a phenomenon in history. Hence it has a historical origin. Two major traditions of Buddhism—Theravada and Mahayana, are extant today. The word Buddha is used for the historical person and for pictures and statues of Historical Buddha. Hence, there is a need to find a unique name for the historical Buddha. Best available information of life and times of historical Buddha is in the Sutta and Vinaya Pitakas of the Pali canon. However, these texts are not translatable and only interpretations exist. Hence, there is no consensus about the life of historical Buddha and his teachings. This paper is an attempt to find a solution to this seemingly impossible problem.
Whence the 8th Day of the 4th Lunar Month as the Buddha's Birthday
Religions, 2023
Two dates, the 8th day of the 4th lunar month (Date A) and the 8th day of the 2nd lunar month (Date B), are found in Chinese Buddhist translations as the Buddha’s birthday. However, how to understand the simultaneous existence of both of these dates remains an unresolved problem. This paper proposes a rather new interpretation to try to solve this puzzle, and provide an answer to the question: whence the 8th day of the 4th lunar month as the Buddha’s birthday? It is argued that: (1) The date of the Buddha’s conception and the date of his birth were both translated vari-ously as Date A or Date B in early Chinese Buddhist literature. However, many later texts refer-ring to the Buddha’s birthday do not include reference to an auspicious junction star (puṣyanakṣatra), which is critical for understanding these dates; (2) Both the Indian and Chinese traditions regard an individual’s life to begin at the moment of conception, therefore, the so-called Buddha’s birthday could be argued as the date of his conception; (3) The date of con-ception of the Buddha was specified as the 8th day of the śuklapakṣa of the month Vaiśākha, the day of the vernal equinox. This corresponds to Date A in the Chinese Xia calendar.
Dating Gautama Buddha's Parinirvāṇa: A critique of Heinz Bechert's echo chamber
The Mythic Society, 2018
The parinirvāṇa of Gautama Buddha is a milestone of singular consequence in Indic chronology, serving as the landmark for dating most events which compose the timeline of our history. In this paper, the authors use astronomical methods to comprehensively compile, analyse, define constraints and determine the unique solution which meets the criteria considered for the most probable year for the death of Buddha. Subsequently, in light of recent archaeological evidence, not only do we demonstrate how key archaeology-related conclusions in Heinz Bechert edited 'When did the Buddha live?' are acutely less tenable in 2018, but also deduce and propose a terminus ante quem (546 B.C.) for Buddha's death. Thereafter, in the philology section, through a critical synoptic analysis we identify problematics that, in our assessment, vitiate the so-called corrected long chronology, short chronology and Bechert's proposal. We believe this paper addresses a crucial void in the post-1995 literature pertaining to Buddha's chronological epoch in being perhaps the first substantive critical assessment of some aspects of the Bechert volume, from an Indic lens, underpinned by a scientific approach. Note: This paper is a fuller, more comprehensive — with more exhaustive data and analysis — version of this paper: https://www.academia.edu/38794701/The\_B\_of\_ABC\_of\_Indian\_chronology\_Dating\_Buddhas\_Parinirv%C4%81%E1%B9%87a\_A\_critique\_of\_Heinz\_Becherts\_echo\_chamber.
From the 'ABC of Indian chronology': epoch of Buddha's Parinirvāṇa (Feb 07, 2021)
In this talk, Manogna and Megh share original published findings pertaining to the epoch of Buddha’s Parinirvāṇa, a part of their framework ABC of Indian Chronology. Amongst what perhaps differentiates this work is its multi disciplinarity and the void in post-1995 literature pertaining to the epoch of Buddha it addresses by being perhaps the first critical engagement with Heinz Bechert’s influential volume.