09-21-2006, 12:18 AM
More discussions on the Buddha's Nirvana date:
Heinz Bechert
The Date of the Buddha - An Open Question of Ancient Indian History
Bechert Datierung 1/211f
In his general preface to the Datierung 1 volume, Bechert summarizes the outcome of the symposium as having destroyed any previous consensus in favor of the death date c0480, and notes that only one contributor to the symposium explicitly defended that date. Indian reviewers of this volume have noted that no Indian scholars were present at the symposium (one or two were later invited to contribute to the later volumes). Among that heavily European sample, Bechert noted that there was agreement that the date was later than c0480, but no agreement on how much later. That is, the chief agreement was to doubt c0480 as the solution.
We here take up for detailed comment a later Bechert essay in Datierung 1. It is a general survey of the evidence for the "long" chronology. Bechert's fundamental argument is to dismiss the idea that the early Indians had a precise elapsed-time chronology. This, a fortiori, disposes of the long as well as the short chronology. We find the dismissal overstated, though we do not necessarily dissent from Bechert's final conclusion: that all will dependent on outside evidence. The comments below are in the order of the seven numbered sections of the Bechert essay.
1. The Two Chronologies. Bechert notes that the "long" chronology, in essence the position that the death of the Buddha preceded by 218 years the coronation of Asoka, gives for the death of the Buddha a date between 0486/0477, and that in the "short" chronology the interval is instead given as 100 years, presumably (given the same degree of uncertainty about the date of the coronation) leading to a death date between 0368/0359. We note in passing, however, that some contributors to the Datierung volumes do not reach this "short chronology" date, but one somewhat earlier; see for instance Gombrich (with reference to Sarao). The matter thus cannot be reduced to a choice between the numbers 218 and 100. It is a choice between 218 and something later.
2. Doubts About Chronology As Such. Bechert doubts that a figure so exact as "218 years" could have been handed down in a tradition which lacks "any other reliable chronological information which pertains to the period before Alexander's campaign in India, which lasted from 0327 to 0324, a date which we know from Greek sources only." Bechert claims that the Buddhist chronology beginning with 0483 or 0486 (Wickremasingha) is not present "in any document of ancient Sinhalese tradition" and that "these eras are inventions of modern scholars." It is highly likely that Sinhalese tradition originated with the Asokan mission which converted that country to Buddhism, and it then suffices to note that Narain (Datierung 2/185f), using not the Sinhalese sources but only the presumably prior Asokan Minor Rock Edict 1, as reflecting the Asokan period tradition for the Buddha date, reaches a date of 0483.
3. The "Cantonese Dotted Record." Bechert notes that this tradition was supposedly begun by Upâli; it consisted of making a dot for every year that had elapsed since the Buddha's death. By the year 489 this record was reported as containing 975 dots, leading to a date of 0486 for the death of the Buddha. Takakusu in 1896 observed that this "dotted record" reflected Theravâda tradition. Bechert cites his previous argument that "this theory has been shown to be erroneous," but this is merely an indisposition to believe that any precise early tradition could have existed (see #1 above). We doubt the role of Upâli (see under Gombrich), and do not credit the story as given, but we think it not unlikely that the "dotted record" does reflect an early tradition; the question is how accurate that early tradition may be supposed to have been. Its closeness to the conclusion of Narain about the presumptive Asokan tradition should be given due weight.
4. Asoka's Minor Rock Edict 1. Bechert sides with F W Thomas, who interpreted the figure "256" in this inscription not as the years since the Buddha's death (the opinion of those who first published versions of the inscription), but as the number of days Asoka had been absent from his own capital. Narain (Datierung 2/185f) reviews the entire picture given by the many known versions of this edict, and effectively counters this argument, both in terms of general plausibility and in terms of the probable meaning of the words in that part of the inscription. Narain, again, concludes that the inscription has in view a death date very near to 0483.
5. The Northern "Short" Tradition. Bechert notes the theory of Hikata (1980, 1985), based on the Northern or short tradition that the Buddha lived from c0480 to c0400. He rejects Hikata's sometimes strained argument. We have no wish to revive or defend Hikata, who continues to rely on the idea of Buddhist Councils separated by intervals of precisely 100 years. See however next.
6. Fa-Syen's Description. Bechert takes issue with Daffina (relying in turn on Schlumberger). Daffina had called attention to Fa-syen's statement that as of 410/411, when he himself visited the region, it was believed in Sri Lanka that 1497 years had passed since the death of the Buddha. This yields a death date of c01086. It seems not to have been noticed that this is the suspiciously round number of 600 years earlier than the date 0486 (see #3 above) which is implied by the "Cantonese dotted record." It seems also not to have been noticed that the Buddha Tooth festival which Fa-syen describes involved replicas of animals which had figured in Jataka tales of the Buddha's previous lives. We suspect that to an earlier southern tradition of an 0486 death date, this "previous lives" festival had added 600 years in order to account for the previous lives (and deaths) which they were concerned to celebrate. This bit of evidence thus goes to confirm the reality of the "0486" tradition. That the tradition existed does not prove that it was correct, but Bechert's attempt to present it as the invention of modern scholars seems to be perilous.
7. Trend of Evidence For a Later Date. In conclusion, Bechert observes "that there is no substantial evidence at all in favor of the corrected long chronology, while there are many arguments which point to a later date of the Nirvana." On the contrary, the most substantial part of the evidence here collected by Bechert shows that the 0486 date (of which Narain's 0483 may be regarded as a recalculation) is of Asokan date in the north, and was then transmitted to the south, where it was subject to later elaboration.
Bechert admits that the "100 years" of his preferred later northern tradition is "a suspiciously round figure." He returns in the end to his assertion that "we have no evidence for the handing down of exact chronological information in India before the Maurya period." In a footnote, he rejects the report of Megasthenes that as of the early Maurya period, there was a tradition of 154 previous kings together covering 6042 years, by saying that it is "hardly more similar to real historiography than the relevant sections in later Purâna literature." We are prepared to agree that it is intrinsically unlikely that in Chandragupta's time there existed anything like reliable records of the previous six thousand years. But the stronger claim, that Indian monarchs of the Maurya period had no concept of elapsed time between themselves and some past defining event, cannot be maintained. We have now evidence to the contrary from people on the scene at three different periods: Megasthenes in the late 04c (north), Asoka in the middle 03c (also north), and Fa-syen much later, in the early 5c (south). Not only do all these observations agree that the Indians possessed a concept of elapsed historical time, the last two also agree on the time that had elapsed since the death of the Buddha, a figure in which they concur with the "Cantonese dotted record," which probably derives ultimately from the same tradition.
Bechert's final position is that "the only way to fix the date of the Nirvâna seems to be the use of indirect evidence." This is the "open question" position. For arguments from indirect evidence, he refers to the other essays in the Datierung volumes, and we will take up those attempts elsewhere in this section.
We note in conclusion that it would be decisive for the Buddha question if closely datable evidence of early Buddhism existed, say in Greek or even in Chinese sources. For our suggestions as to some direct but external evidence, see in detail the Evidence page. The weight of that evidence is that a Buddha death date in the vicinity of c0486/c0483 is after all likely. A substantially later date does not fit the relatively well known chronology of the Chinese sources.
14 Sept 2005 / at: http://www.umass.edu/wsp/indica/buddhism...chert.html
see also more info on Buddha dating:
http://www.umass.edu/wsp/indica/buddhism/d...beyesekere.html
The Cambridge and Oxford histories of India accept 483 B.C as the date of Buddhaâs nirvana. But, William Jones, on the basis of Chinese and Tibetan records infers that Buddha lived in the 11th century B.C.
Historian Fleet, who makes a study of âRajataranginiâ, thinks that Buddha lived in the 17th century B.C. Chinese monk Fa-Hien puts Buddhaâs Nirvana at 1050 B.C. These contradictory theories may confuse one altogether.
The history that Buddha lived in the 5th century B.C was propounded by E.J Rapson who writes that the exact date of Buddhaâs Nirvana is not known and hence the popularly accepted year of Buddhaâs Nirvana is imaginary.
http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?...90,0,0,1,0
a discussion at:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/b...uddha.html
In conclusion
It is clear that if the objective of these volumes was to find absolute proof as to the exact date of the Buddha, then they would have failed. No method or evidence we have at the present is sufficient to establish that to the strictest standards of evidence. What certainly has been done is a firmly dethrone the old consensus - it is not impossible that the long chronology may yet be rehabilitated, but someone will have to undertake the task. From the point of view of reasonable probability the evidence seems to favour some kind of median chronology and we should no doubt speak of a date for the Buddha's Mahaparinibbana of c.400 B.C - I choose the round number deliberately to indicate that the margins are rather loose.
It follows that the date of Mahavira and kings such as Pasenadi or Bimbisara must be correspondingly brought down, as they are part of the same historical context. Probably also the date of the Upanisads must be later and possible connexions with the Greek world must be rethought.
Dominik Wujastyk
Sat Oct 25 21:18:30 BST 1997
Summarised: the western specialists favour (always) a low date, but can't (ever) prove this.
Heinz Bechert
The Date of the Buddha - An Open Question of Ancient Indian History
Bechert Datierung 1/211f
In his general preface to the Datierung 1 volume, Bechert summarizes the outcome of the symposium as having destroyed any previous consensus in favor of the death date c0480, and notes that only one contributor to the symposium explicitly defended that date. Indian reviewers of this volume have noted that no Indian scholars were present at the symposium (one or two were later invited to contribute to the later volumes). Among that heavily European sample, Bechert noted that there was agreement that the date was later than c0480, but no agreement on how much later. That is, the chief agreement was to doubt c0480 as the solution.
We here take up for detailed comment a later Bechert essay in Datierung 1. It is a general survey of the evidence for the "long" chronology. Bechert's fundamental argument is to dismiss the idea that the early Indians had a precise elapsed-time chronology. This, a fortiori, disposes of the long as well as the short chronology. We find the dismissal overstated, though we do not necessarily dissent from Bechert's final conclusion: that all will dependent on outside evidence. The comments below are in the order of the seven numbered sections of the Bechert essay.
1. The Two Chronologies. Bechert notes that the "long" chronology, in essence the position that the death of the Buddha preceded by 218 years the coronation of Asoka, gives for the death of the Buddha a date between 0486/0477, and that in the "short" chronology the interval is instead given as 100 years, presumably (given the same degree of uncertainty about the date of the coronation) leading to a death date between 0368/0359. We note in passing, however, that some contributors to the Datierung volumes do not reach this "short chronology" date, but one somewhat earlier; see for instance Gombrich (with reference to Sarao). The matter thus cannot be reduced to a choice between the numbers 218 and 100. It is a choice between 218 and something later.
2. Doubts About Chronology As Such. Bechert doubts that a figure so exact as "218 years" could have been handed down in a tradition which lacks "any other reliable chronological information which pertains to the period before Alexander's campaign in India, which lasted from 0327 to 0324, a date which we know from Greek sources only." Bechert claims that the Buddhist chronology beginning with 0483 or 0486 (Wickremasingha) is not present "in any document of ancient Sinhalese tradition" and that "these eras are inventions of modern scholars." It is highly likely that Sinhalese tradition originated with the Asokan mission which converted that country to Buddhism, and it then suffices to note that Narain (Datierung 2/185f), using not the Sinhalese sources but only the presumably prior Asokan Minor Rock Edict 1, as reflecting the Asokan period tradition for the Buddha date, reaches a date of 0483.
3. The "Cantonese Dotted Record." Bechert notes that this tradition was supposedly begun by Upâli; it consisted of making a dot for every year that had elapsed since the Buddha's death. By the year 489 this record was reported as containing 975 dots, leading to a date of 0486 for the death of the Buddha. Takakusu in 1896 observed that this "dotted record" reflected Theravâda tradition. Bechert cites his previous argument that "this theory has been shown to be erroneous," but this is merely an indisposition to believe that any precise early tradition could have existed (see #1 above). We doubt the role of Upâli (see under Gombrich), and do not credit the story as given, but we think it not unlikely that the "dotted record" does reflect an early tradition; the question is how accurate that early tradition may be supposed to have been. Its closeness to the conclusion of Narain about the presumptive Asokan tradition should be given due weight.
4. Asoka's Minor Rock Edict 1. Bechert sides with F W Thomas, who interpreted the figure "256" in this inscription not as the years since the Buddha's death (the opinion of those who first published versions of the inscription), but as the number of days Asoka had been absent from his own capital. Narain (Datierung 2/185f) reviews the entire picture given by the many known versions of this edict, and effectively counters this argument, both in terms of general plausibility and in terms of the probable meaning of the words in that part of the inscription. Narain, again, concludes that the inscription has in view a death date very near to 0483.
5. The Northern "Short" Tradition. Bechert notes the theory of Hikata (1980, 1985), based on the Northern or short tradition that the Buddha lived from c0480 to c0400. He rejects Hikata's sometimes strained argument. We have no wish to revive or defend Hikata, who continues to rely on the idea of Buddhist Councils separated by intervals of precisely 100 years. See however next.
6. Fa-Syen's Description. Bechert takes issue with Daffina (relying in turn on Schlumberger). Daffina had called attention to Fa-syen's statement that as of 410/411, when he himself visited the region, it was believed in Sri Lanka that 1497 years had passed since the death of the Buddha. This yields a death date of c01086. It seems not to have been noticed that this is the suspiciously round number of 600 years earlier than the date 0486 (see #3 above) which is implied by the "Cantonese dotted record." It seems also not to have been noticed that the Buddha Tooth festival which Fa-syen describes involved replicas of animals which had figured in Jataka tales of the Buddha's previous lives. We suspect that to an earlier southern tradition of an 0486 death date, this "previous lives" festival had added 600 years in order to account for the previous lives (and deaths) which they were concerned to celebrate. This bit of evidence thus goes to confirm the reality of the "0486" tradition. That the tradition existed does not prove that it was correct, but Bechert's attempt to present it as the invention of modern scholars seems to be perilous.
7. Trend of Evidence For a Later Date. In conclusion, Bechert observes "that there is no substantial evidence at all in favor of the corrected long chronology, while there are many arguments which point to a later date of the Nirvana." On the contrary, the most substantial part of the evidence here collected by Bechert shows that the 0486 date (of which Narain's 0483 may be regarded as a recalculation) is of Asokan date in the north, and was then transmitted to the south, where it was subject to later elaboration.
Bechert admits that the "100 years" of his preferred later northern tradition is "a suspiciously round figure." He returns in the end to his assertion that "we have no evidence for the handing down of exact chronological information in India before the Maurya period." In a footnote, he rejects the report of Megasthenes that as of the early Maurya period, there was a tradition of 154 previous kings together covering 6042 years, by saying that it is "hardly more similar to real historiography than the relevant sections in later Purâna literature." We are prepared to agree that it is intrinsically unlikely that in Chandragupta's time there existed anything like reliable records of the previous six thousand years. But the stronger claim, that Indian monarchs of the Maurya period had no concept of elapsed time between themselves and some past defining event, cannot be maintained. We have now evidence to the contrary from people on the scene at three different periods: Megasthenes in the late 04c (north), Asoka in the middle 03c (also north), and Fa-syen much later, in the early 5c (south). Not only do all these observations agree that the Indians possessed a concept of elapsed historical time, the last two also agree on the time that had elapsed since the death of the Buddha, a figure in which they concur with the "Cantonese dotted record," which probably derives ultimately from the same tradition.
Bechert's final position is that "the only way to fix the date of the Nirvâna seems to be the use of indirect evidence." This is the "open question" position. For arguments from indirect evidence, he refers to the other essays in the Datierung volumes, and we will take up those attempts elsewhere in this section.
We note in conclusion that it would be decisive for the Buddha question if closely datable evidence of early Buddhism existed, say in Greek or even in Chinese sources. For our suggestions as to some direct but external evidence, see in detail the Evidence page. The weight of that evidence is that a Buddha death date in the vicinity of c0486/c0483 is after all likely. A substantially later date does not fit the relatively well known chronology of the Chinese sources.
14 Sept 2005 / at: http://www.umass.edu/wsp/indica/buddhism...chert.html
see also more info on Buddha dating:
http://www.umass.edu/wsp/indica/buddhism/d...beyesekere.html
The Cambridge and Oxford histories of India accept 483 B.C as the date of Buddhaâs nirvana. But, William Jones, on the basis of Chinese and Tibetan records infers that Buddha lived in the 11th century B.C.
Historian Fleet, who makes a study of âRajataranginiâ, thinks that Buddha lived in the 17th century B.C. Chinese monk Fa-Hien puts Buddhaâs Nirvana at 1050 B.C. These contradictory theories may confuse one altogether.
The history that Buddha lived in the 5th century B.C was propounded by E.J Rapson who writes that the exact date of Buddhaâs Nirvana is not known and hence the popularly accepted year of Buddhaâs Nirvana is imaginary.
http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?...90,0,0,1,0
a discussion at:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/b...uddha.html
In conclusion
It is clear that if the objective of these volumes was to find absolute proof as to the exact date of the Buddha, then they would have failed. No method or evidence we have at the present is sufficient to establish that to the strictest standards of evidence. What certainly has been done is a firmly dethrone the old consensus - it is not impossible that the long chronology may yet be rehabilitated, but someone will have to undertake the task. From the point of view of reasonable probability the evidence seems to favour some kind of median chronology and we should no doubt speak of a date for the Buddha's Mahaparinibbana of c.400 B.C - I choose the round number deliberately to indicate that the margins are rather loose.
It follows that the date of Mahavira and kings such as Pasenadi or Bimbisara must be correspondingly brought down, as they are part of the same historical context. Probably also the date of the Upanisads must be later and possible connexions with the Greek world must be rethought.
Dominik Wujastyk
Sat Oct 25 21:18:30 BST 1997
Summarised: the western specialists favour (always) a low date, but can't (ever) prove this.