Dear Paulo et all,

Paulo: "This link will take you to a review article,
by Mr.

> Lance Cousins,
> of the published papers from the sympoium on "The
> Dating of the
> Historical Buddha."
>
>

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/buddha/buddha.html"

-------------------------------------------------------

The review article of Mr. Cousins mentions Dr.
Gombrich excelent work:

"Richard Combrich (...) developed a similar theory,
based upon the same proposition but with a more
detailed and somewhat modified argumentation. In his
version the accession of Asoka took place after 136
years. (I have elsewhere suggested some further minor
changes.) Gombrich's arguments have undoubtedly shown
that the data in the Dipavamsa on the lineage of the
teachers is impressively consistent when interpreted
in this way. He is certainly right to argue that the
lineage is a succession of teachers expert in the
Vinaya and not a succession of individuals with some
institutional authority. No doubt too he is correct in
pointing out the existence of other lists of such
teachers with different names, as found in various
non-Pali sources, is in no way in contradiction. There
would have been many such pedigrees for different
pupil-teacher lines.

If the general arguments of the Rhys Davids-Gombrich
thesis are correct, and they may well be, then the
overall picture must be something like the following:
when the creators of the Sinhala chronicle tradition
attempted to work out a chronology, they had basically
two sources of information for the period prior to
Asoka. One was a lineage of teachers with ages at
ordination and death. They must also have had some
kind of brahmanical kinglist, of the sort preserved
for us in various Puranas, perhaps derived from
diplomatic links with North India. (We know from
Megasthenes that such lists were current in Mauryan
governing circles.) The long chronology as we have it
is the result of combining the two sources with
adjustments to make them fit."

Mr. Cousins�s thesis states that is very difficult
to set dates exactly about the early days of Buddhism
- despite Dr. Gombrich�s efforts on this field. But
if there is a consensus about these matters, one can
set the Mahaparinibbana of Buddha as about 400 B.C..

Mettaya

�caro

>
>
> Best Wishes,
> Paul O Cuana
>
>
>
> --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Lennart Lopin"
> <lenni_lop@...> wrote:
> > Dear Everett and Terry,
> >
> >
> > This compilation* you mention is probably the one
> i came across
> too. There
> > were several scientific (and varying) descriptions
> of how to
> ascertain
> > Buddhas historical dates. Thats why i was so
> surprised by Prof.
> Gombrichs
> > final answer on that subject. Is there maybe new
> (historical)
> evidence?
> >
> > As to the explanation on paticcasamuppada i rather
> find it
> difficult to give
> > you an accurate "short" summary. But there are
> Ven. Nyananandas
> Nibbana
> > Sermons published by the Sri Lankan Dhamma Net:
> >
> > http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/clm_main1.htm
> >
> > Especially sermon No 2 gives a vivid and deep
> explanation of
> > paticcasamuppada - it might open ones eyes, so to
> say, if you have
> been
> > familiar only with the "usual" Buddhaghosa way of
> explaining the
> dependant
> > arising.
> >
> > mettaya,
> >
> > Lennart
> >
> > -----------------
> > *probably this:
> >
> > When did the Buddha live? : the controversy
> on the dating of
> the
> > historical Buddha ; selected papers based on a
> symposium / held
> under the
> > auspices of the Academy of Sciences in G�ttingen.
> Edited by Heinz
> Bechert. -
> > 1. ed. - Delhi : Sri Satguru Publications, 1995
> > Schriftenreihe: Bibliotheca Indo-Buddhica
> series ; no. 165
> > ISBN: 81-7030469-5
>
>

=====
Seize the time, there�s only minutes left to zero
Just got a little taste, I gotta get some more,
Just me and you

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com