Hello Derek and Bhante Sujato

I remember reading Richard Gombrich's paper many years ago. It is in
the volume mentioned by Derek (which is available in the University of
Sydney library).

Gombrich bases his argument on (from memory) the succession of
teachers and periods between master and disciples. From this he
estimated the date of the Buddha going backwards.

Here is the reference:
Gombrich, Richard. 1992. "Dating the Buddha: a red herring revealed."
in Dating of the historical Buddha / Die Datierung des historischen
Buddha (Symposien zur Buddhismusforschung, IV, 2), The. Gottingen :
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. (Abh der Akad d Wissenschaften
Gottingen, Phil-Hist Kl ; 3, 194). p. 237-259.

If I get a chance during the holidays, I would like to go in a get a
copy of this article and re-read it!

Regards

Terryw

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 22:08:12 -0000, Bhante Sujato <sujato@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hello Derek
>
> As i understand, there is no scholarly consenus. I did read a rather
> remarkeable statment recently by Richard Gombrich that he
> had 'solved' the problem, but i have not been able to come across
> the details of his argument. He says the parinibbana was at 404 BCE
> (plus or minus about ten years), which he arrives at because it is
> 136 years before Asoka.
>
> in Dhamma
>
> Bhante Sujato
>
>
> --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Derek" <derekacameron@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, All,
> >
> > A bit off-topic for the Pali list, but someone here may know the
> > answer.
> >
> > I had always thought there were several methods for dating the
> > lifetime of the Buddha. One gives 623 BC to 543 BC (the
> traditional
> > dates, used to determine for example that AD 2005 = 2548 BE). All
> > the others give approximately 563 BC to 483 BC (generally quoted
> in
> > scholarly and historical works). See for example the discussion in
> > H. W. Schumann, The Historical Buddha, pp. 10-13.
> >
> > However, recently I've come across references to a book I don't
> > have, Heinz Bechert, The Dating of the Historical Buddha. Bechert
> > proposes much more recent dates, up to a century later than
> > previously thought. But then a review by L. S. Cousins in the
> > Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society for 1996 says that Bechert
> has
> > overstated his case.
> >
> > Does anyone know what is the current scholarly consensus for the
> > dates of the Buddha?
> >
> > Derek.
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
> $4.98 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/Q7_YsB/neXJAA/yQLSAA/b0VolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> [Homepage] http://www.tipitaka.net
> [Send Message] pali@yahoogroups.com
> Paaliga.na - a community for Pali students
> Yahoo! Groups members can set their delivery options to daily digest or web only.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>