Buddah's birth year.

[Mosha]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/01/buddha-birth-archaeology-nepal-durham

Evidence points to it being much earlier.

[camerata]

The author of the Guardian article has completely misunderstood.The significance of the find was that they now have archaeological evidence of the Buddha's birth, dating it to the 6th century BCE, rather than textual evidence alone. That corresponds to the accepted date of 563 BCE. I don't see any explanation as to how they can be sure this "tree shrine" is a Buddhist shrine other than it happens to be in the right place.

Here's a more recent article: http://www.thejournal.co.uk/north-east-analysis/analysis-news/durham-university-professors-breakthrough-find-8397715

Perhaps this find will persuade the doubters who believe there was no single historical person who developed the teachings of Buddhism.

[fang37]

My research reveals that the real birth date is subject to debate. Thais use 543BE.

[RichCor]

I see the OP is digging up 2-year old articles:

"...a team led by [Dr. Robin] Coningham, a professor of archaeology and pro-vice-chancellor at Durham University, had made a startling discovery about the date of the Buddha's birth, one that could rewrite the history of Buddhism. After a three-year dig on the site of the Maya Devi temple at Lumbini in Nepal, Coningham and his team of 40 archaeologists discovered a tree shrine that predates all known Buddhist sites by at least 300 years."

In response, I would agree with the first few comment left on the original article:

Kinewald 1 Dec 2013 15:58

"They may be evidence that hasn't yet been revealed, but in none of the reports I have read is there any indication why this should be thought to be a "Buddhist" shrine, rather than a tree shrine incorporated into a Buddhist site."

PleaseTurnLeft --> Kinewald 1 Dec 2013 17:08

"Indeed; there are religious sites all over the world that have changed allegiance over the years. Unless they find some definite association with the Buddha, then anything could have been worshiped/reverenced there. Still interesting though."

creativity1976 --> Kinewald 1 Dec 2013 17:35

"Scientific claims generally are peer-reviewed. Firstly, I we need to be clear if Dr.Coningham is making a speculation or assertion of that 6th century tree shrine to be a Buddhist shrine. What is beyond doubt is that the tree shrine dates to 6th century BC. Because of the absence of sacrificial altars, it can be infered to be a non-violent place of worship. Therefore it can be inferred to be early Buddhishm. That is ofcourse not the same as having a conclusive proof.

Now, I tried to read the original article published by Dr.Coningham in the Journal of Antiquity about his discovery, but it is unfortunately pay per view. If any of the CIFers have access to this journal, they might be able to inform us about the actual evidences that mounted towards this speculation or assertion."

[VincentRJ]

The author of the Guardian article has completely misunderstood.The significance of the find was that they now have archaeological evidence of the Buddha's birth, dating it to the 6th century BCE, rather than textual evidence alone. That corresponds to the accepted date of 563 BCE. I don't see any explanation as to how they can be sure this "tree shrine" is a Buddhist shrine other than it happens to be in the right place.

Here's a more recent article: http://www.thejournal.co.uk/north-east-analysis/analysis-news/durham-university-professors-breakthrough-find-8397715

Perhaps this find will persuade the doubters who believe there was no single historical person who developed the teachings of Buddhism.

Camerata,

I'm not sure there ever was a consensus among scholars that accepted the 6th century date of 563 BCE for the birth of Buddha. If there was, someone should inform Wikipedia. There seems to be a variation of about 2 centuries for the actual birth date of Buddha. The following is an extract from Wikipedia.

"He is believed to have lived and taught mostly in the eastern part of the Indian subcontinent sometime between the sixth and fourth centuries BCE.[4][note 4]"

NOTE 4

411–400: Dundas 2002, p. 24: "...as is now almost universally accepted by informed Indological scholarship, a re-examination of early Buddhist historical material, [...], necessitates a redating of the Buddha's death to between 411 and 400 BCE..."

405: Richard Gombrich[20][21][22][23]

Around 400: See the consensus in the essays by leading scholars in Narain, Awadh Kishore, ed. (2003), The Date of the Historical Śākyamuni Buddha, New Delhi: BR Publishing, ISBN 81-7646-353-1.

According to Pali scholar K. R. Norman, a life span for the Buddha of c. 480 to 400 BCE (and his teaching period roughly from c. 445 to 400 BCE) "fits the archaeological evidence better".[2] See also Notes on the Dates of the Buddha Íåkyamuni.

This is an extremely problematic issue for those of us interested in historical accuracy, and that problem is exacerbated by the apparent fact that there was no 'functioning' written script during those times in India. There were certainly lots of symbols around, but no fully functioning written language, as there was during the lifetime of Jesus Christ.

This fact also makes it more difficult to get an overall picture of the social circumstances of the times. For example, we know from written, historical, Roman records that the Gospels were penned during a period which followed a massive invasion of Judea by the Romans, who destroyed the temple of Jerusalem, raized the entire city to the ground, raped and pillaged the surrounding areas and slaughtered about half the population of Judea.

It seems undeniable that that event would have influenced the style, nature and content of the gospels, which is useful to know for those of us interested in historical accuracy, and the truth in general.

We have no such accounts relating to the (estimated) period of the Buddha's life. I tend to assume that life for the average person during those times, people who were not privileged like the Buddha in his palace surroundings, was probably absolutely awful; even worse that than what we sometimes see today on television.

In such a context, without the hope offered by modern science and economic development, it's understandable that a 'Buddhist' solution that describes all existence as 'suffering' and creates a method of 'escape' from the 'wheel of life' which perpetuates the suffering, could be very meaningful and attractive.

These are issues which concern me, and which I think about. The Kalama Sutta is one of the most impressive Buddhist Suttas I've come across, which I find to be very relevant in a modern context. That its origin dates to about 2,500 years ago, I find simply amazing. What slow learners we are.

[fang37]

If you live in Thailand, why not just accept the Thai opinion?

[VincentRJ]

If you live in Thailand, why not just accept the Thai opinion?

I don't live in Thailand, although I visit the country now and again.

Wherever I happen to be living, I hope I have the sense to accept only opinions that make sense and are supported by evidence.

[fang37]

Evidence is misleading many times.

To calculate Buddha year (BE) for Thailand, add 543 to the normal year ie 2015+543.

[camerata]

Camerata,

I'm not sure there ever was a consensus among scholars that accepted the 6th century date of 563 BCE for the birth of Buddha. If there was, someone should inform Wikipedia. There seems to be a variation of about 2 centuries for the actual birth date of Buddha. The following is an extract from Wikipedia.

Actually, I got that specific date from Wikipedia's entry on the Buddha's birthday, and used it because it seemed to correspond to dates I have seen in many books. I should have said something like "traditionally accepted date of mid-sixth century."

My copy of Gethin's The Foundations of Buddhism cites 566-486 BCE as the "most widely published dates" in modern publications. But these are based on traditional Pali sources relating to King Asoka and to references to contemporary kings in his rock edicts.

If this shrine is in fact a Buddhist shrine, it would seem that scholars claiming the Buddha's birth was in the 5th century are wrong.

[Northwindhermit]

A highly recommended and well cited article on this question is “The Dating of the Historical Buddha: A Review Article” by L. S. Cousins:

http://indology.info/papers/cousins/

In the above linked article, Cousins reported on the conclusions of a major international conference in Germany in 1988 on the Buddha’s historical dates. It was a well-prepared and exhaustive scholarly conference study that summed up the long history of the relevant research, the various chronological methods used by different Buddhist cultures throughout history, and various conclusions the conference eventually arrived at.

Bottom line: The date of the Buddha’s death (at age 80) is now widely thought to be around 400 BC (give or take a couple of decades). A provisional birth date of circa 483 BC has been suggested by some.

The very brief Wikipedia article on “L. S. Cousins” gives a bare glimpse of his career as a leading scholar in Buddhist studies, with a mention of his honorary professorship at Mahamakut Buddhist University, Bangkok. I was sad to discover that he had died earlier this year. Cousins was humble and strived to be as objective as possible, as I had judged him to be from many years of reading his posts on various discussion eLists that focused on Buddhism and ancient Indo-European research. He was kind enough to personally answer me off-list, in my amatuer off-list questions to him about this subject. He will be missed.

[fang37]

Far more important is living the Buddha way - the Noble Path.

[VincentRJ]

Evidence is misleading many times.

That's not quite correct, although I know what you mean.

Evidence is as it is. The problem lies in the interpretation of the evidence, which can often be misleading. All evidence has to be interpreted. The mind, ego, vanity, desire for a particular outcome, can all conspire to trick the mind into accepting a false interpretation.

The Buddha was aware of this.

[VincentRJ]

Camerata,

I'm not sure there ever was a consensus among scholars that accepted the 6th century date of 563 BCE for the birth of Buddha. If there was, someone should inform Wikipedia. There seems to be a variation of about 2 centuries for the actual birth date of Buddha. The following is an extract from Wikipedia.

If this shrine is in fact a Buddhist shrine, it would seem that scholars claiming the Buddha's birth was in the 5th century are wrong.

Indeed! One can't argue with that. However, it seems to be a big if, Camerata.

The article you linked to contains the following statement.

"Prof Coningham and his colleagues speculated that the open space in the centre of the shrine they discovered may have accommodated a tree."

Some searching on the internet revealed the following article, published by Tricycle, from Richard Gombrich who is a historian of early Buddhism and editor of The Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies.

He debunks the conclusions of Prof. Coningham. I'm certainly not qualified to assert who is right, but it seems clear the that matter relating to the Buddha's birth date is not settled.

http://www.tricycle.com/blog/recent-discovery-earliest-buddhist-shrine-sham

[only1]

For me, what is important is the teachings. If it is good and useful, I don't care if Buddha ever existed or not.

If it is unbelievable, even promise of heaven cannot be believed.

Scientists have also denied the "shroud of Turin", but there are believers too.