Earliest Buddhist shrine links Buddha's life to 6th Century BC

BonsaiDoug

MODS: please feel free to move this if I've placed it in the wrong section.

Earliest Buddhist shrine links Buddha's life to 6th
By Binaj Gurubacharya Associated Press, Tue Nov 26,



KATHMANDU, Nepal -- Archeologists in Nepal say they have discovered traces of a wooden structure dating from the sixth century B.C. that they believe is the world’s oldest Buddhist shrine.

Previously, a pillar installed by Indian Emperor Ashok with inscriptions dating to the third century B.C. was considered to be the oldest Buddhist structure.

Full story here: http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=4,11686,0,0,1,0#.UpYJDOJGbSU

ThailandTom

I posted a link from the BBC website on this 2 days ago, it for whatever reason was deleted :rolleyes:

zenff

What I understood it is not certain that what they found was a Buddhist shrine.

Tree-shrines are older than Buddhism and can be found in other places. This one is in the place where popular belief says the Buddha was born. That however could also mean that somewhere in time an existing shrine was chosen to function as the birth-place of the Buddha. And as this place was a tree-shrine they fabricated the story of Mayadevi giving birth to her baby standing upright holding a branch of a tree.

(It is a procedure which in Europe turned the midwinter-celebration to a Christian holiday. They just didn’t have any smart idea to fit the tree-worship into the story. So now nobody understands why we put trees in our houses around the birthday of Jesus.)

They didn’t find remains of sacrificed animals. That could mean it was a Buddhist shrine or it could mean that they cleaned the place up when it became a Buddhist shrine some centuries later.

BonsaiDoug

@zenff - yes, there's some controversy as to whether this existed originally as a Buddhist temple, or was an earlier temple adopted by Buddhists. Perhaps as the excavation continues more will come to light?

@ThailandTom - I believe there is a forum "rule" regarding the posting of just a link without any accompanying story. That's just a guess on my part.

Chaz

BonsaiDoug said:

@zenff - yes, there's some controversy as to whether this existed originally as a Buddhist temple, or was an earlier temple adopted by Buddhists.

That's entirely possible. Various religious groups, historically, have coopted sites of other religions. The Basílica de Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe in Mexico is said to sit on the site of an Aztec temple to their version of the Mother godess. A cathedral now stands on the site of the Aztec's Templo Major in Mexico City. The Haga Sophia in Istanbul was built as a Christian cathedral - now it's a mosque. So, it's quite possible that a much older tree shrine was adopted by Buddhists as the place where the Buddha was born. It's not like trees don't figure into the myths surrounding the life if the Buddha.

The so-called "Bodhi Tree" in Bodhgaya is revered as the the spot where the Buddha became enlighted. Well, it's certainly not the same tree. We know this from the historic record. We're told this tree was raised from a seed or cutting of another tree said to be a decendant of the original and planted on what is said to be the right spot. Who know for sure?

I will say this about that: It's my aspiration to go to Bodhgaya. Even though I doubt the true authenticity of the site and tree itself, I will still go to that spot, take refuge and prostrate before it.

And that's okay. It's the way of the world.

The dates are also questionable. I believe the new site was tested using c14 dating. Notoriously unreliable when dating sites like this.

Perhaps as the excavation continues more will come to light?

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Ultimately, it doesn't truly matter where exactly the Buddha was born. It doesn't matter when.

And people are still going to be people. They want/need a place to vernerate as the Buddha's birthplace, just as Christians need the birthplace oif Christ, or Americans need Lincoln's. It's all good.