Buddha born on 1800 BC? read this

[Nosta]

If you read the text on the link below, you will read a theory arguing that Buddha born on 1800 BC (more or less) and not about year 500 BC as we knew.

What do you think?

Also, i see so many "amazing" articles on that website that i get my doubts about some articles...

EDIT: i forgot the link!!
Here goes:
http://www.viewzone.com/buddahyearx.html

[Bodhi]

Sorry, I dont know where the link is but I can't find it.

[Nosta]

Bodhi, see the first topic again, the link is there now. Sorry, but on first time i forgot to post the link.

By the way, BODHI: this is offtopic, but could you read my questions on your thread (link below) and answer them? Thanks!

viewtopic.php?f=45&t=1794&p=13039#p13039

[some1]

If you read the text on the link below, you will read a theory arguing that Buddha born on 1800 BC (more or less) and not about year 500 BC as we knew.

What do you think?

Also, i see so many "amazing" articles on that website that i get my doubts about some articles...

EDIT: i forgot the link!!
Here goes:
http://www.viewzone.com/buddahyearx.html

I found a related discussion at another forum dated year 2006/7.

There is also an interesting review written by Jennifer Sabin at amazon.com [EDIT: corrected the hyperlink]

Personally, I am skeptic about the real motive of such claims.

[Aemilius]

There was before a discussion about this in the BuddhistChannel.com, but it is not there anymore. Here is another page that supports the 1800 BCE dating
http://tibetanaltar.blogspot.com/2007/12/when-was-buddha-born.html

Buston Rimpoche and venerated Nyingma historians with Tarthang Tulku support the dating of Buddha's life at around 1000 BCE. The information is from the Nyingma Annals of Dharma Publishing and the Blue Annals and History of Buddhism of Buston Rimpoche.

[Nosta]

So, the confusion is on road and no one seems to know the real date...

Its not that important in fact, but it would be nice to know the real date when Buddha born...

[Aemilius]

So, the confusion is on road and no one seems to know the real date...

Its not that important in fact, but it would be nice to know the real date when Buddha born...

I recommend that you attain the Three Vidya ( knowledges) or Six Abhijna ( supernormal powers) or the Five Cakshu ( eyes), and you will know it through your supernormal vision.
But if you then want to tell it to others, you will confront a mountain of "scientific knowledge" and a mountain of propaganda.

[Nosta]

Paranormal vision?

Impossible to attain that for someone off dull capacitys like me in this dharma ending age.

Maybe for masters, but not for me i think...

[Indrajala]

My understanding of Indian history is that we really arn't absolutely sure of anything until about the 8th or 9th centuries. Until the Muslim takeover it seems much of India did not have much interest in writing extensive histories.

The life of the Buddha is still a contested date. The typical date given is that he died in 480BCE, but then others say it was a century later.

I think it depends on how you date Ashoka's reign, which again will be contested.

I've also read that in the age when Asanga and Vasubandhu lived they believed Buddha's death had been many centuries prior to what we present believe it to be now. This might actually reflect that, indeed, the Buddha's life was a number of centuries earlier than what scholars presently suggest.

One way of addressing this might be to do first a DNA test on the Buddha relics we presently have and see if they match a single individual. If that's the case then do carbon dating and see what year you get.

I don't think, however, a lot of Buddhists would be keen on having DNA extracted from relics...

[Huifeng]

Try this article Cooking the Buddhist Books: The Implications of the New Dating of the Buddhafor the History of Early Indian Buddhism.

The main difference is between using the southern "dotted record" and the Kings of Sri Lanka, or the northern system of time before Asoka. There is good evidence either side, but about 100 years in between!

The earlier dates were based on a range of ancient and very inaccurate dating methods. Some groups, particularly quite traditional and conservative ones, still use these.

[Huifeng]

The life of the Buddha is still a contested date. The typical date given is that he died in 480BCE, but then others say it was a century later.

That's only the "typical date" in English, because of the heavy reliance on Pali Buddhism for all things about "the historical buddha". There is as much evidence for the other tradition, quite frankly.

I think it depends on how you date Ashoka's reign, which again will be contested.

I think that Asoka's date is rather stable, but the gap between the Buddha and Asoka is the big issue.

[Indrajala]

The life of the Buddha is still a contested date. The typical date given is that he died in 480BCE, but then others say it was a century later.

That's only the "typical date" in English, because of the heavy reliance on Pali Buddhism for all things about "the historical buddha". There is as much evidence for the other tradition, quite frankly.

I think it depends on how you date Ashoka's reign, which again will be contested.

I think that Asoka's date is rather stable, but the gap between the Buddha and Asoka is the big issue.

Venerable, would you object to DNA and carbon testing of the Buddha's tooth among other relics?

[mindyourmind]

Pardon my ignorance, but other than mere historical interest and curiosity (which I share), is there any particular consequence to Buddhism in general or our practice in particular that follows on an earlier or later date? I'm not trying to be a wise-acre, I just cannot really see any significant change dependent on accuracy here.

A reason why I am asking is that, for me, this is one of the beauties of Buddhism. If Buddha is proved to have been born a thousand years earlier, or later, or last week or never at all, my practice, my beliefs and the beauty of The Way remains.

Again, I would love to know the history of this with as much accuracy as possible, but I sense in some of the comments that there is a lot more at stake here. If so, I don't get that line of argument.

[Indrajala]

Pardon my ignorance, but other than mere historical interest and curiosity (which I share), is there any particular consequence to Buddhism in general or our practice in particular that follows on an earlier or later date? I'm not trying to be a wise-acre, I just cannot really see any significant change dependent on accuracy here.

A reason why I am asking is that, for me, this is one of the beauties of Buddhism. If Buddha is proved to have been born a thousand years earlier, or later, or last week or never at all, my practice, my beliefs and the beauty of The Way remains.

Again, I would love to know the history of this with as much accuracy as possible, but I sense in some of the comments that there is a lot more at stake here. If so, I don't get that line of argument.

One key thing here that comes to mind is our understanding of how the Buddhist canons developed.

This will influence how people practice because if they learn some parts of the canon developed only because of sectarian views (which is actually the case) then they may be less inclined to follow what they don't perceive as "the actual teachings of the Buddha". That things were added, removed and reorganized in sutras alone tells us that if we want to know the source of many Buddhist teachings we need to understand how everything originated and developed.

One germane example of this is the twelve links of dependent origination. Some suggest it wasn't actually twelve, but fewer originally. I've even heard some people suggest it was crafted by later Buddhist sects and was not taught by Shakyamuni (however that might just be Japanese scholars and their speculation).

In any case scholarly discussions trickle down and influence things at the ground level all the time.

I mean how people people perceive the Pali canon as being the original teachings of the "historical Buddha"? When did and why did that perception arise?

[neverdowell]

I mean how people people perceive the Pali canon as being the original teachings of the "historical Buddha"? When did and why did that perception arise?

I don't know but I'm sure Mara has something to do with it.

Not to say that Arhats are insignificant, of course, but their "mission" is less of a threat to Mara than Bodhisattvas... I personally had a long struggle with having faith in Mahayana sutras. It takes merit just to get started, to have faith in everything Mahayana. I think there's just so little merit these days, this is a degenerate time, at least that's what I hear a lot.

[Nosta]

Pardon my ignorance, but other than mere historical interest and curiosity (which I share), is there any particular consequence to Buddhism in general or our practice in particular that follows on an earlier or later date? I'm not trying to be a wise-acre, I just cannot really see any significant change dependent on accuracy here.

A reason why I am asking is that, for me, this is one of the beauties of Buddhism. If Buddha is proved to have been born a thousand years earlier, or later, or last week or never at all, my practice, my beliefs and the beauty of The Way remains.

Again, I would love to know the history of this with as much accuracy as possible, but I sense in some of the comments that there is a lot more at stake here. If so, I don't get that line of argument.

One key thing here that comes to mind is our understanding of how the Buddhist canons developed.

This will influence how people practice because if they learn some parts of the canon developed only because of sectarian views (which is actually the case) then they may be less inclined to follow what they don't perceive as "the actual teachings of the Buddha". That things were added, removed and reorganized in sutras alone tells us that if we want to know the source of many Buddhist teachings we need to understand how everything originated and developed.

One germane example of this is the twelve links of dependent origination. Some suggest it wasn't actually twelve, but fewer originally. I've even heard some people suggest it was crafted by later Buddhist sects and was not taught by Shakyamuni (however that might just be Japanese scholars and their speculation).

In any case scholarly discussions trickle down and influence things at the ground level all the time.

I mean how people people perceive the Pali canon as being the original teachings of the "historical Buddha"? When did and why did that perception arise?

Thats the case with pure land buddhism. I would like to know if is a real teaching or not.

[Will]

From an old book by Edkins:

Early in the seventh century, the emperor Taitsung
ordered an investigation into the date of Buddha s
birth. Lieu Te-wei, a minister of State, inquired of a
famous Buddhist named Fa-lin the reason of the dis
crepancy in the current accounts. The consequence was
that Fa-lin settled it to be B.C. 1027.
The same author proceeds to give several other epochs,
believed in by as many authorities. I. Inscription on a
stone pillar. This gives B.C. 718. 2. The statement of
the pilgrim Fa-hien, B.C. 1197. 3. The statement of the
work Siang-cheng-ki, B.C. 75 3. 4. Another statement places
it in the time of Hia-kie, B.C. 1800. The fifth authority,
Chung-sheng-tien-U, gives the date B.C. 457. The sixth
states that B.C. 687 was the year in question, and that
then, according to the Tso-cliwen, there was a shower of
falling stars.

So around 1000 bce has been accepted by much of Chinese Buddhism for a long time.

[some1]

So around 1000 bce has been accepted by much of Chinese Buddhism for a long time.

Master YinShun, rejected B.C. 1029 as that is from an unreliable source. According to him, that was actually based on 『周書異記』written by some Taoists during the 6th century in China.

[Aemilius]

Paranormal vision?

Impossible to attain that for someone off dull capacitys like me in this dharma ending age.

Maybe for masters, but not for me i think...

You can try the short cut of Lotus sutra believers, you state your wish and purpose ( of wanting to know the Buddha's birth date), then you worship the name of the Lotus sutra, and after a time you will know the answer! Amazing !

[Aemilius]

So around 1000 bce has been accepted by much of Chinese Buddhism for a long time.

Master YinShun, rejected B.C. 1029 as that is from an unreliable source. According to him, that was actually based on 『周書異記』written by some Taoists during the 6th century in China.

1000 bce is also accepted by tibetan historian Buston.