Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
I Found This Interesting...
federica
Seeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
Re-establishing the Date of Lord Buddha
by Stephen Knapp
(Excerpt from Proof of Vedic Culture's Global Existence)
Most of us are taught that Buddha was born around 560 to 550 B.C. However, once we start doing some research, we find evidence that this date may be too late. Buddha may have been born much earlier.
For example, in Some Blunders of Indian Historical Research (p. 189), P. N. Oak explains that the Puranas provide a chronology of the Magadha rulers.
During the time of the Mahabharata war, Somadhi (Marjari) was the ruler. He started a dynasty that included 22 kings that spread over 1006 years. They were followed by five rulers of the Pradyota dynasty that lasted over 138 years. Then for the next 360 years was the 10 rulers of the Shishunag family. Kshemajit (who ruled from 1892 to 1852 B.C.) was the fourth in the Shishunag dynasty, and was a contemporary of Lord Buddha's father, Shuddhodana. It was during this period in which Buddha was born.
It was during the reign of Bimbisara, the fifth Shishunag ruler (1852-1814 B.C.), when Prince Siddhartha became the enlightened Buddha. Then it was during the reign of King Ajatashatru (1814-1787 B.C.) when Buddha left this world. Thus, he was born in 1887 B.C., renounced the world in 1858 B.C., and died in 1807 B.C.
Further evidence that helps corroborate this is provided in The Age of Buddha, Milinda and King Amtiyoka and Yuga Purana, by Pandit Kota Venkatachalam. He also describes that it is from the Puranas, especially the Bhagavat Purana and the Kaliyurajavruttanta, that need to be consulted for the description of the Magadha royal dynasties to determine the date of Lord Buddha. Buddha was the 23rd in the Ikshvaku lineage, and was a contemporary of Kshemajita, Bimbisara, and Ajatashatru, as described above. Buddha was 72 years old in 1814 B.C. when the coronation of Ajatashatru took place. Thus, the date of Buddha's birth must have been near 1887 B.C., and his death in 1807 B.C. if he lived for 80 years.
Professor K. Srinivasaraghavan also relates in his book, Chronology of Ancient Bharat (Part Four, Chapter Two), that the time of Buddha should be about 1259 years after the Mahabharata war, which should make it around 1880 B.C. if the war was in 3138 B.C. Furthermore, astronomical calculations by astronomer Swami Sakhyananda indicates that the time of the Buddha was in the Kruttika period, between 2621-1661 B.C.
Therefore, the fact that Buddha lived much earlier than what modern history teaches us has a number of ramifications.
First, the time of the Buddha's existence is underestimated by about 1300 years.
Secondly, this means that Buddhism was in existence in the second millennium B.C.
Thirdly, we also know Buddha preached against the misused Vedic rituals of sacrifice. Such misuse can only happen after a long period of prominence. Therefore, this pushes the Vedic period farther back from the time of Buddha than originally figured.
And lastly, everything else we have figured according to the time frame of the appearance of Buddha now has to be re-calculated. Again we find that history has to be adjusted away from the speculations of modern researchers, and that many of the advancements in society and philosophy had taken place much earlier than many people want to admit.
(This article is from: http://www.stephen-knapp.com)
from here
Has anyone read, or heard of the above books? I'd love to get hold of one....:thumbsup:
by Stephen Knapp
(Excerpt from Proof of Vedic Culture's Global Existence)
Most of us are taught that Buddha was born around 560 to 550 B.C. However, once we start doing some research, we find evidence that this date may be too late. Buddha may have been born much earlier.
For example, in Some Blunders of Indian Historical Research (p. 189), P. N. Oak explains that the Puranas provide a chronology of the Magadha rulers.
During the time of the Mahabharata war, Somadhi (Marjari) was the ruler. He started a dynasty that included 22 kings that spread over 1006 years. They were followed by five rulers of the Pradyota dynasty that lasted over 138 years. Then for the next 360 years was the 10 rulers of the Shishunag family. Kshemajit (who ruled from 1892 to 1852 B.C.) was the fourth in the Shishunag dynasty, and was a contemporary of Lord Buddha's father, Shuddhodana. It was during this period in which Buddha was born.
It was during the reign of Bimbisara, the fifth Shishunag ruler (1852-1814 B.C.), when Prince Siddhartha became the enlightened Buddha. Then it was during the reign of King Ajatashatru (1814-1787 B.C.) when Buddha left this world. Thus, he was born in 1887 B.C., renounced the world in 1858 B.C., and died in 1807 B.C.
Further evidence that helps corroborate this is provided in The Age of Buddha, Milinda and King Amtiyoka and Yuga Purana, by Pandit Kota Venkatachalam. He also describes that it is from the Puranas, especially the Bhagavat Purana and the Kaliyurajavruttanta, that need to be consulted for the description of the Magadha royal dynasties to determine the date of Lord Buddha. Buddha was the 23rd in the Ikshvaku lineage, and was a contemporary of Kshemajita, Bimbisara, and Ajatashatru, as described above. Buddha was 72 years old in 1814 B.C. when the coronation of Ajatashatru took place. Thus, the date of Buddha's birth must have been near 1887 B.C., and his death in 1807 B.C. if he lived for 80 years.
Professor K. Srinivasaraghavan also relates in his book, Chronology of Ancient Bharat (Part Four, Chapter Two), that the time of Buddha should be about 1259 years after the Mahabharata war, which should make it around 1880 B.C. if the war was in 3138 B.C. Furthermore, astronomical calculations by astronomer Swami Sakhyananda indicates that the time of the Buddha was in the Kruttika period, between 2621-1661 B.C.
Therefore, the fact that Buddha lived much earlier than what modern history teaches us has a number of ramifications.
First, the time of the Buddha's existence is underestimated by about 1300 years.
Secondly, this means that Buddhism was in existence in the second millennium B.C.
Thirdly, we also know Buddha preached against the misused Vedic rituals of sacrifice. Such misuse can only happen after a long period of prominence. Therefore, this pushes the Vedic period farther back from the time of Buddha than originally figured.
And lastly, everything else we have figured according to the time frame of the appearance of Buddha now has to be re-calculated. Again we find that history has to be adjusted away from the speculations of modern researchers, and that many of the advancements in society and philosophy had taken place much earlier than many people want to admit.
(This article is from: http://www.stephen-knapp.com)
from here
Has anyone read, or heard of the above books? I'd love to get hold of one....:thumbsup:
0
Comments
Closer to home, it is only some 30 years ago that we had to reassess the whole chonology of the rulers of the Heptarchy in Britain. T his came about through good archaeological evidence and that is what seems to be missing in the article about dating Gotama's life. It is based on literature rather than artefacts. What is more, it cites the Mahabarata and, with all respect to this magnificent epic, it may have historic roots but is a fable on the same level as the Iliad: it may point us towards geographical location and sequence of events but is pretty useless for dating purposes. It's like using Shakespeare's Julius Caesar to date the fall of the Roman Republic.
It is an interesting idea but I would need to see far more solid evidence before such a radical redating. There is another agenda here, too, which is to prove the extreme age of the Vedas.
You know, Leonardo Da Vinci's Mona Lisa (La Gioconda) is really only a self-portrait. Also, if the cholesterol in eggs doesn't kill you before you memorize one year's worth of health news you can use, only to be contradicted by the next year's, then...
Also had me laughing my pants off! (Trousers, for you Brits.)