Buddha's birth earlier than previously thought
person
Don't believe everything you thinkThe liminal space Veteran
This story is a few months old but I just came across it.
The discovery of a previously unknown wooden structure at Buddha's birthplace suggests the sage might have lived in the sixth century BC, centuries earlier than thought, archaeologists said.
>
"This is one of the very rare occasions when tradition, belief, archaeology and science come together," archaeologist Robin Coningham, the lead scientist on the dig, told Al Jazeera in an email.
>
The team of 40 archaeologists discovered what appears to have been an ancient timber shrine under a brick temple inside the sacred Maya Devi Temple at Lumbini, and ancient place of worship considered to be the birthplace of Buddha located in southern Nepal near the Indian border.
>
The traces were scientifically tested and confirm dating to the sixth century, predating all known Buddhist sites by 300 years, archaeologists said Monday.
>
They found a wooden structure dating back to 600BC but none of the sources I read said anything about some trace of something Buddhist in the structure. That it was found at Lumbini, the birthplace of the Buddha, suggests that it would be of Buddhist origin, but it could just as well be that the site was something else before and the early Buddhists took it over for the Buddha's birthplace. It wouldn't be the first time a religion usurped something older and made it its own.
Comments
That doesn't change anything - because the message does not change.
Ditto. If new or different teachings are discovered, that'd be worth talking about, but the date of his birth is already "close enough" at an estimated 2500 years ago.
Yeah, you're right, it really doesn't change anything regarding the study and practice of Buddhism.
I'm wondering whether the find really means the Buddha was born earlier than thought before. If anyone knows of any more detailed resource I'd be appreciative.
I don't know, but would that change anything either?
Well, it would change the simple fact of the date that we think he was born.
I think some people find credibility in following the lineages and timelines to authenticate the teachings, changing the date of his birth would likely have an effect on some of that.
Nothing wrong with reading information just for the sake of reading. I still read the occasional fictional work. Eco's "Name of the Rose" certainly doesn't change anything, either. It's interesting nonetheless. Does everything posted have to mean change? It's just something interesting worth reading (if you want). I don't see why it should be expected to change anything?
@karasti Such an odd coincidence you brought up "Name of the Rose". I just watched the movie adaptation a couple days ago (Ron Perlman as "Salvatore" was my favorite, never knew he was that versatile!). Small world huh?
I think there is a value here, however. I know there are people who argue Buddhist topics as if they know everything there is to know about Buddhism, and then in a minute they find out part of what they knew wasn't right at all. It's a good lesson in the permanence of what "you" KNOW.
This will likely increase the understandable skepticism of the Pali texts being an accurate representation of the Buddha's teachings. Right now the position in Buddhology circles is generally that the Pali texts were written down due to political pressure stemming from King Asoka.
Tissa the monk was a if not the prime receiver of this pressure and caved to this, and according to his writings, he convened the third council (so according to this view, the schism actually occurred during the third and not second council, and derives from earlier texts such as Tissa's), where apparently no monks who opposed his position were allowed in.
Asoka wanted to create a new orthodoxy and establish it was the religion of his land, and so wanted to unify the Buddhisms (as by one system of classification there were 18 schools predating theravada), many of which had completely contrary views on very critical issues, such as the enlightenment status of an arhat. Many of the schools predating Theravada emphasized instead a bodhisattva path and considered arhats to be not fully enlightened, still subject to the passions and desire, infallible, and capable of "nocturnal emissions" (ejaculation due to subtle passions arising during the course of dreams), in some cases even challenging that an arhats enlightenment was permanent, instead considering it a temporary attainment. Other schools emphasized a pure original mind/nature of sentient beings that is similar to Zen, Dzogchen and others.
This is why what eventually became the sort of meta-tradition known as Mahayana, and some schools within it like Madhyamaka emphasizing this more than others, rejected the Pali texts as being a totally reliable source in regards to the Buddha's teachings, though not rejecting them completely outright, as that would be a epistemic violation, and instead considered many of its teachings to be provisional for a practitioners of a certain capacity.
This is also, to iterate, why scholars and Buddhists alike are understandably skeptical about the authenticity of the pali texts, as being driven by political motivations and being far removed from the Buddha by many hundreds of years (and now even more so if accepting the position that the Buddha was alive even earlier than some estimates).
So I actually do think it might change a bit in the academic world, as the next generation of Buddhologists might be even more skeptical of the Pali texts than their predecessors.
All of which seems just as speculative and unsubstantiated as the other claims. Each school of Buddhism claims to be descended from the Buddha, and there's a clear "we're better" signal emanating when each tries to convince us that's the case.
Seems everyone has a dog in the fight (I prefer cats).
Anyway, good night NB!
All of what exactly? The actual claims of the schools, which amount to differences in not only interpretation, but what was said in the first place? Or do you mean the claim that there were indeed schools predating theravada which held differing views?
Yes, essentially it means that the spoken word tradition lasted hundreds of years longer than thought, making what was written down more questionable. But on the other hand, if it's wise, it's wise, even if Al Capone said it.
That is the Mahayana position to a T.
In response to contemporary critics of their time, who questioned Buddhists on how they could know for sure not only the validity of the texts, but whether or not Shakyamuni was even a Buddha and actually enlightened (from the angle essentially of "how do you know with epistemic certainty?"), the Mahayanans responded by defending the wisdom of the Pali texts, even if the person portrayed wasn't a Buddha, and vowed that they would not rely on the authority of any texts, instead relying on rigorous logic and collaborative direct experience (intersubjectively determinable and agreeable collaboration), as a system to Buddhahood. Effectively rendering the criticism moot in that "hey it doesn't matter if that person was enlightened or not, we can carefully construct Buddhahood ourselves, and further our collaborative and rigorous insight into Buddhahood leaves us no reason to think otherwise" (insofar as whether that person, Shakyamuni, was indeed enlightened).
Well, for the time being, the documentary raises a lot of speculation and questions, but they are not confirming for sure that the Buddha was actually born a couple of centuries before the presumed date of his birth.
In the beginning, Buddhism borrowed many rituals from existing religions. Let's not forget that the Buddha did not actually set out to create a new religion. Even his teaching evolved from the existing philosophies of his time.
So what if this temple that has been discovered was in fact a pre-existent temple like those which later inspired Buddhist followers in the creation of their own temples? What if it were our knowledge of archeology that is brought into question, rather than Buddhism as we know it?
Anyway, I agree with @anataman and @AldrisTorvalds that the message does not change, though it would still continue to raise questions as to the authenticity of some excerpts of the Pali Canon.
Agreed with above. What modern research does show is that the actual history of a religion is a much messier and convoluted evolution than claimed. Buddhism is no different.
However, the finding of a centuries-old building under an old temple or shrine really says nothing about Buddhism, unless they find some writing or sign of that religion like an amulet (very early Buddhists did not use the image of Buddha like we are familiar with today).
What we might have here is a convert to Buddhism replacing an existing Brahman shrine with a shrine to Buddha. Converts were common, and if a King was converted, many old sacred places would have been torn down and replaced. Until the next conversion came along. Even today, there are fights over which religion in India should occupy old sacred sites.
Egyptian monuments have been marked with a cross. Roman temples have been transformed into churches. The church of St Sophie's in Istambul has been turned into a mosque...
And in today's Thailand, historical Khmer (Cambodian) Hindu temples were converted into Buddhist temples under King Jayavarman The (oops, don't remember his number).
Hm. I don't think the discovery necessarily calls the 480 BCE date into question because there's no reason to believe that a village of some sort didn't predate Lumbini, or that Lumbini itself hadn't been around that long. But even if it did, I think it'd actually lend more credence to the Pali Canon since the canon itself places the Buddha's birth much earlier, around 623 BCE.
Moreover, there's a sufficient amount of indirect evidence, in my opinion, that points towards a large portion of the Pali Nikayas, as well as other 'early Buddhist texts' like the Chinese Agamas, etc., having their source in the figure known as the historical Buddha. That doesn't mean, of course, that I think other traditions and their texts don't have wisdom or value, or that the Pali Nikayas are unadulterated; but I tend to agree with Sujato Bhikkhu that it's "very likely that the bulk of the sayings in the EBTs that are attributed to the Buddha were actually spoken by him."