Buddha/buddhism Born In Iran?

[Xangsamhua]

I wonder what those of you with more expertise than me (which would be most of you) think about the thesis that the Buddha and Buddhism came from Iran rather than India or Nepal.

The thesis has been put forward by an Indian scholar, Ranjit Pal, but I can find very little reference to him on the web (where he teaches, etc.). Anyway, the discussion is at this link.

http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/trirat/2007/09/17/entry-2

I put it to my wife who argued that the Buddhism/India tradition is just too strong to be challenged, regardless of the alleged distortions of European scholars during the 18th and 19th centuries.

Peace

Xangsamhua

[chownah]

Where the Buddha was born has no significance for his teachings that I'm aware of.

I don't think the article was researched very well....I think the author was just trying to create controversy. If you think I am wrong (I'm often wrong) then you might glean from the article a list of points which support this new thesis and we can discuss them.

Chownah

[garro]

Where the Buddha was born has no significance for his teachings that I'm aware of.

I don't think the article was researched very well....I think the author was just trying to create controversy. If you think I am wrong (I'm often wrong) then you might glean from the article a list of points which support this new thesis and we can discuss them.

Chownah

I would tend to agree with Chownah that it is not really that significant where he was born.

I would go even further and say that it is not that important that the historical Buddha existed.

The teaching are effective in themselves.

I like the story of Gotama but if it were proved as false tomorrow it would not have much bearing on my respect for the teachings.

[Xangsamhua]

Where the Buddha was born has no significance for his teachings that I'm aware of.

I don't think the article was researched very well....I think the author was just trying to create controversy. If you think I am wrong (I'm often wrong) then you might glean from the article a list of points which support this new thesis and we can discuss them.

Chownah

I would tend to agree with Chownah that it is not really that significant where he was born.

I would go even further and say that it is not that important that the historical Buddha existed.

The teaching are effective in themselves.

I like the story of Gotama but if it were proved as false tomorrow it would not have much bearing on my respect for the teachings.

I have no axe to grind in this matter. I was just curious. I agree that it matters not where the Buddha was born, though I'd prefer that he was an historical figure and, hence, am curious to get the record stratight if at all possible. Taking up Garro's suggestion, I'd list in simple terms the main points of the article as follows:

1. Some (perhaps most) scholars dismiss the proposition that the Buddha was of royal blood.

2. The belief that he was born in Lumbhini is based on a fraud perpetrated by Dr Alois Fuhrer in the late 19th century.

3. William Jones blundered in locating Alexander the Great's Palibothra at Patna.

4. Patna is believed to be a significant early site of Buddhist activity, but Palibothra is in that part of ancient India now located in Iran, well to the West of Patna.

5. This would explain why Greco-Buddhist art is older than Indian-Buddhist art and why the Bamiyan staues are/were in Afghanistan.

6. To locate the origin of Buddhism in India, subsequently spreading Eastward, is to reverse the otherwise consistent Westward flow of ancient migrations.

I suppose it's reasonable to respond to all this with a shrug and "Who cares?", but I'd be interested if anyone has a view on it. It's an historical question rather than one of Dharma practice, but a curious one nevertheless.

[chownah]

I probably won't get through the entire list today but I'll make a start at it.

1. Some (perhaps most) scholars dismiss the proposition that the Buddha was of royal blood.

Reply: This really hasn't much to do with anything....it is not surprising that there are scholars who disagree...I'd be surprised if there weren't scholars who disagree...

2. The belief that he was born in Lumbhini is based on a fraud perpetrated by Dr Alois Fuhrer in the late 19th century.

Reply: I believe that there is wide spread agreement that the Buddha was born in Lumbhini but it might be debatable if the commonly accepted site for Lumbhini has been located properly...I think...I could be wrong on this. Also, there is some evidence that the commonly accepted site for Lumbhini might not be the correct spot but to flat out claim that there was fraud involved should be backed up with some proof...and even if it was fraudulently claimed to have been found doesn't mean that the real site is far away...it only means that the real site hasn't been located.

3. William Jones blundered in locating Alexander the Great's Palibothra at Patna.

REply: What does this have to do with where the Buddha was born....as far as I can tell it has nothing to do with where the Buddha was born. Alexander the Great was by all accounts not contemporary with Gotama Buddha but lived later even by by most reasonably accepted latest dates proposed for the Buddhas time of living......is there any evidence that they were contemporaries?......how does this prove anything?

Time for dinner.

Chownah

Edited January 31, 2008 by chownah

[garro]

I always thought that one of the reasons why Lumpini was considered the birth place of the Buddha was due to the large pillar, built by King Ashoka many centuries ago, stating that this was the birthplace of the Buddha.

[chownah]

Back from dinner and I found a site that relates directly to this conjecture and specifically to Ranjit Pal its author...it is this link:

http://www.classics.und.ac.za/reviews/05-19pal.htm

It is Jan-Mathieu's (Carbon,Corpus Christi College, Oxford) review of Ranjit Pal's book titled Non-Jonesian Indology and Alexander.

It seems from this source that Alexander's Palibothra is used as a place from which other sites are referenced....I don't know for sure exactly how this works but in theory if Palibothra's location was corrected by moving it west then alot of other places would be repositioned to the west to to maintain their same distance and direction for Palibothra I guess....here's what Jan-Mathieu has to say about some of the books content. In regards to Pal's suggested relocation of Palibothra Jan-Mathieu says that it is, "provocative challenge to current orthodoxy" but goes on to further describe the work in general with:

"As a scholarly study, however, Pal's methods of analysis and presentation leave much to be desired. The book reads like a draft of a manifesto that skips from one argument to the next haphazardly. Few primary sources are cited directly and instead copious use is made of secondary sources in the endnotes, to the detriment of solid argument. The confused, often obscure style of exposition diminishes the book's appeal to a great extent. The presence of Karl Jung and Robert Graves, those two masters of befuddlement, in the acknowledgments (p. 7), immediately warn the reader to turn the pages with careful fingers. Pal's writing is so terse and confused as to seem stilted."

and more specifically about how Pal relocates other places to match his new location for Palibothra:

"Pal's anti- Jonesian mission in this chapter goes well beyond Alexander's conquests. It involves relocating many of the places and persons that are mentioned in the Greek literary sources and were previously associated with places east of the Indus to sites in what is today South-East Iran. Pal gleefully embarks on this errand and takes it too far -- ironically emulating Alexander? Greek personal and place names are associated with Sanskrit or other names with very little or no demonstration. Here is a representative sample of his awkward style of argumentation: 'It may be that Alexander also knew Chanakya or Bagoas. His name Chanakya may be linked to Kana(uj). Golla Vishaya may be Chaldea or Babylon where Bagoas' tree-park was a famous landmark. Bagoas may have been behind the Bessos affair' (p. 47). Pal repeats this flow of bold, relatively unconnected speculations in nearly all the paragraphs of the book. His provocative linguistic associations are interesting and certainly quite possible, but not very convincing since not properly analysed and evidenced. The strongest part of the first chapter comes at its very end, in the paragraph entitled 'A Call to Archaeologists' (pp. 63f.). Here Pal acknowledges the desperate need for further research on Indo-Iran: '[a] patient search [...] may one day reward the investigator with the sought-after traces of Alexander'. Indeed, that is precisely what is needed to support Pal's arguments: secure evidence of Alexander's transit, and not only conjectures based on linguistic similarities."

The review also agrees with me that Alexander was not a contemporary of Gotama Buddha but lived somewhat later....it suggest a couple of centuries.

5. This would explain why Greco-Buddhist art is older than Indian-Buddhist art and why the Bamiyan staues are/were in Afghanistan.

Reply: I don't think that the Buddha being born in Iran would affect the dates of Greco-Buddhist or Indian-Buddhist art. Could it be that Indian-Buddhist art is of a more recent date because the Muslim invaders completely destroyed Buddhism in India and destroyed its temples and arts?....so the existing art work post dates that invasion and therefore is of a later period than the Greco stuff?...that would be my guess but I want to stress that its only a guess. It might also be noted that there was no Buddhist artwork done during the Buddha's lifetime and probably not any significant amount for some time thereafter.... again I don't know this for sure although I'm reasonably sure about none during the Buddha's lifetime.

6. To locate the origin of Buddhism in India, subsequently spreading Eastward, is to reverse the otherwise consistent Westward flow of ancient migrations

Buddhism wasn't spread as a passive "migration". The Buddha (I think at the time of his death) instructed his monks to travel out in all directions to spread the teachings and that no two should take the same path.....the message being that the message should be spread to everywhere. I think the concept of a "flow of ancient migrations" does not really apply to the spread of the Buddha's teachings and this has implications for items 3,4, and 5 as well.

Enough for now. What do you think?

Chownah

Edited January 31, 2008 by chownah

[pampal]

Alexander came about 200-300 years later than the time of the Buddah's era.

India at various stages in history was a part of the Persian Empire and the Persian Royal calendar is virtually the same as the time of Gotama's existence.

In the Persian Royal Calendar, it's around the year 255x, or thereabouts. You can check easily enough.

Iran and India both speak Indo-European languages and share many similarities.

Bagoas was an Iranian or Persian who lived in the city of Shush or Susa which was the winter capital of the Persian Emperors.

Afghanistan was also a part of the Persian Empire as was modern day Pakistan.

Anytime you see a country name ending with "istan", that country was a former part of the Persian Empire. Istan comes from the Persian word ostan, which means state.

All the istans in the former soviet union, were at some point, part of the Persian Empire.

Sorry to go off topic

Edited January 31, 2008 by pampal

[Xangsamhua]

Back from dinner and I found a site that relates directly to this conjecture and specifically to Ranjit Pal its author...it is this link:

http://www.classics.und.ac.za/reviews/05-19pal.htm

It is Jan-Mathieu's (Carbon,Corpus Christi College, Oxford) review of Ranjit Pal's book titled Non-Jonesian Indology and Alexander.

It seems from this source that Alexander's Palibothra is used as a place from which other sites are referenced....I don't know for sure exactly how this works but in theory if Palibothra's location was corrected by moving it west then alot of other places would be repositioned to the west to to maintain their same distance and direction for Palibothra I guess....here's what Jan-Mathieu has to say about some of the books content. In regards to Pal's suggested relocation of Palibothra Jan-Mathieu says that it is, "provocative challenge to current orthodoxy" but goes on to further describe the work in general with:

"As a scholarly study, however, Pal's methods of analysis and presentation leave much to be desired. The book reads like a draft of a manifesto that skips from one argument to the next haphazardly. Few primary sources are cited directly and instead copious use is made of secondary sources in the endnotes, to the detriment of solid argument. The confused, often obscure style of exposition diminishes the book's appeal to a great extent. The presence of Karl Jung and Robert Graves, those two masters of befuddlement, in the acknowledgments (p. 7), immediately warn the reader to turn the pages with careful fingers. Pal's writing is so terse and confused as to seem stilted."

and more specifically about how Pal relocates other places to match his new location for Palibothra:

"Pal's anti- Jonesian mission in this chapter goes well beyond Alexander's conquests. It involves relocating many of the places and persons that are mentioned in the Greek literary sources and were previously associated with places east of the Indus to sites in what is today South-East Iran. Pal gleefully embarks on this errand and takes it too far -- ironically emulating Alexander? Greek personal and place names are associated with Sanskrit or other names with very little or no demonstration. Here is a representative sample of his awkward style of argumentation: 'It may be that Alexander also knew Chanakya or Bagoas. His name Chanakya may be linked to Kana(uj). Golla Vishaya may be Chaldea or Babylon where Bagoas' tree-park was a famous landmark. Bagoas may have been behind the Bessos affair' (p. 47). Pal repeats this flow of bold, relatively unconnected speculations in nearly all the paragraphs of the book. His provocative linguistic associations are interesting and certainly quite possible, but not very convincing since not properly analysed and evidenced. The strongest part of the first chapter comes at its very end, in the paragraph entitled 'A Call to Archaeologists' (pp. 63f.). Here Pal acknowledges the desperate need for further research on Indo-Iran: '[a] patient search [...] may one day reward the investigator with the sought-after traces of Alexander'. Indeed, that is precisely what is needed to support Pal's arguments: secure evidence of Alexander's transit, and not only conjectures based on linguistic similarities."

The review also agrees with me that Alexander was not a contemporary of Gotama Buddha but lived somewhat later....it suggest a couple of centuries.

5. This would explain why Greco-Buddhist art is older than Indian-Buddhist art and why the Bamiyan staues are/were in Afghanistan.

Reply: I don't think that the Buddha being born in Iran would affect the dates of Greco-Buddhist or Indian-Buddhist art. Could it be that Indian-Buddhist art is of a more recent date because the Muslim invaders completely destroyed Buddhism in India and destroyed its temples and arts?....so the existing art work post dates that invasion and therefore is of a later period than the Greco stuff?...that would be my guess but I want to stress that its only a guess. It might also be noted that there was no Buddhist artwork done during the Buddha's lifetime and probably not any significant amount for some time thereafter.... again I don't know this for sure although I'm reasonably sure about none during the Buddha's lifetime.

6. To locate the origin of Buddhism in India, subsequently spreading Eastward, is to reverse the otherwise consistent Westward flow of ancient migrations

Buddhism wasn't spread as a passive "migration". The Buddha (I think at the time of his death) instructed his monks to travel out in all directions to spread the teachings and that no two should take the same path.....the message being that the message should be spread to everywhere. I think the concept of a "flow of ancient migrations" does not really apply to the spread of the Buddha's teachings and this has implications for items 3,4, and 5 as well.

Enough for now. What do you think?

Chownah

I think you've done pretty well. The reference to the Jan-Mathieu review was helpful. I have the impression that Ranajit Pal, though learned, is not part of the formal scholarly community and may let his forensic enthusiasm override his methodological self-discipline. As I said earlier, he doesn't appear to be attached to an institution of higher education or research. Of course he could still be on to something, but it appears he hasn't really established it yet.

I was a bit confused by the Alexandrine reference, too, as I knew that Alexander was well after Gotama, but assumed that the city of Palibothra identified with him must be generally recognised as a site of early Buddhist activity. In confusing it with Patna, so the thesis goes, Jones led everyone astray and located early Buddhism far East of its actual locus of activity during Alexander's/Iskander's time. This in turn led to the siting of Lumbhini in the India-Nepal border region and the mislocation of Kapilavastu.

An earlier posting (Garro 31/01) refers to the Ashoka pillar at Lumbhini. There's some discussion of that in the link http://www.lumkap.org.uk/ . The link argues that the Ashokan inscription is spurious. I'm in no position to judge the validity of that claim. I guess, for me, if there's anything in the Ranajit Pal argument it shows us that we can't afford always to take current scholarly paradigms as gospel.

Peace

Xangsamhua

[Plus]

It's the idea of fraud that might arouse some suspicions. We hope that we got the teachings right, but we can't really be sure until this fraud theory is cleared.

What the possible impact might be? I don't know. I know that Christianity will never be the same if they prove that Christ didn't rise from dead. Lots of people would probably say it doesn't matter, that the teachings still work for them, but the Church would bw fuirious.

Anyone seen the Last Tomb of Christ? These things, even if true, have near zero chance of being accepted by mainstream community.

[longway]

This would explain why Greco-Buddhist art is older than Indian-Buddhist art and why the Bamiyan staues are/were in Afghanistan.

Is this actually true? isn't there earlier Buddist art from India that represented the Buddha by the bodhi tree or foot prints?

The presence of statues in Afghansistan infers nothing more than there being a widespread Buddhist culture in that part of the world.

I also wonder about the language of the Tipitaka being so beautiful (could Pali just be a translation?) and the references to Maghdala (sp), which has been lacated to the Indian sub continent I believe, and are there not supposed to be references to Mahaveira (the central Jain figure was supposed to be a contempory to the Buddha) or was that the other way round? I have heard no suggestions that his origin is anything other than Indian.

How about the traditions of the naked sadhus that were prevelant in N India at the time. Is there a similiar culture in Iran?

Well, who knows, but thats what comes to my mind, when thinking about this suggestion. There are strong links bewteen Iran and India historically though.

[cm das]

This would explain why Greco-Buddhist art is older than Indian-Buddhist art and why the Bamiyan staues are/were in Afghanistan.

Is this actually true? isn't there earlier Buddist art from India that represented the Buddha by the bodhi tree or foot prints?

The oldest known Buddha images are from Gandhara, modern-day Pakistan, showing strong Greek influence. But there is Indian Buddhist art, at the Ajanta caves and the stupa at Sanchi for example, that is older than the Gandharan images. And yes, in this older art the Buddha is represented by a tree, footprints, I think also an umbrella on occasion.

[longway]

references to Mahaveira (the central Jain figure was supposed to be a contempory to the Buddha) or was that the other way round? I have heard no suggestions that his origin is anything other than Indian.

Link here suggests Mahavira was of Iranian descent. Not to sure of its validity given the source: Mahavira _ Iran

The article doesnt contend that Mahavira lived in Iran, rather that he is of Iranic descent.

I have looked around on the net, and there are considerable links between ancient India and Iran. I think the guy is on to something. Ranajit Pal's website is very interesting anyway.

[trader1]

2. The belief that he was born in Lumbhini is based on a fraud perpetrated by Dr Alois Fuhrer in the late 19th century.

I wonder how Dr Fuhrer managed to get Asoka's pillar transported to Lumpini from Iran? Not to mention the other temple remains.

Good luck on your progress in uncovering this wonderful mystery.

[CuriousGeorge77]

This would explain why Greco-Buddhist art is older than Indian-Buddhist art and why the Bamiyan staues are/were in Afghanistan.

Is this actually true? isn't there earlier Buddist art from India that represented the Buddha by the bodhi tree or foot prints?

The oldest known Buddha images are from Gandhara, modern-day Pakistan, showing strong Greek influence. But there is Indian Buddhist art, at the Ajanta caves and the stupa at Sanchi for example, that is older than the Gandharan images. And yes, in this older art the Buddha is represented by a tree, footprints, I think also an umbrella on occasion.

I'd heard Alex the Great had influenced Indian art to create statues in the Greek form. In other words, the reason we see ancient Buddha figurines and statues is because Alexander the Great invaded. Otherwise, Buddhist art might never have taken that artistic route.

[EnqueaIstarion]

Nothing is too strong to be challenged.

But he that we will remember on Macka Bucha day did not hail from Iran.

[flyx]

It's possible

because iran history returns to human's life

Mads were first humans did live in iran and then they moved to west of earth where europe is now (more than 10'000 years ago) so all your first parents are iranian when you look at earth history exactly

when we go close , iran empire(persian empire)was big country from italia to india , and we see iran became small after attacks arabs to this land (about 1400 years ago) and budha lived Buddha was born around 565 B.C ,Then it was before arabs attacks

few maps

See more details about persian empire here :

http://www.crystalinks.com/persia.html

Edited March 9, 2008 by flyx