Skip to comments.Buddha's New Birthplace Discovered
Posted on 05/24/2004 2:26:44 PM PDT by blam
Buddha's new birthplace discovered
Kapileshwar (Orissa) May 24, 2004 9:37:15 AM IST
A team of archeological experts from Orissa say their recent findings at the Kapileshwar village may help establish the small hamlet as the birthplace of Lord Buddha, instead of Lumbini, in Nepal. Officials at the Orissa State Museum, which conducted the excavation, said that the new findings, which included artefacts dating back to 6th century BC, supported the claims of Kapileshwar being Lord Buddha's birthplace. Buddhism was founded in India, when Lord Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, attained supreme enlightenment under the Bodhi tree in Bodhgaya in 6th century B.C. The Orissa museum team undertook surface exploration near Mahabhoi tank where Buddha is believed to have meditated. Pottery and other artefacts belonging to the pre-Harappan era were also discovered from the site. All the artefacts have been sent to the Institute of Physics for further verification and research.
"These fossilised specimen will be tested in the Institute of Physical Laboratory, where we will be doing collaborative work, so the dateline will be determined and comparative study of potteries recovered with that of potteries recovered form other parts of the country will be conducted. Because many materials are there, literary and other evidence are there about the bath of Buddha and Kapileshwar, but solid archaeological materials like pottery with correct dateline was not available to us till date. There is an excavation, now there are archaeological material, so identification of this bath place of Buddha is getting more prominent now," said Dr. C.B. Patel, the Superintendent of Orissa State Museum.
The team has also discovered the fossilised dung of an animal from the tank that adds to the claim of the ancient character of the site. Ruins of an ancient temple and a road linking Kapileshwar with Puri were also discovered.
Buddhism is one of the four most popular religions in the world. The religion is gaining popularity especially in the West, where followers include the likes of popular Hollywood actors like Richard Gere and Steve Seagal.
Though there are about 350 million practising Buddhists across the world, Buddhists account for less than 0.7 percent of India's total population of over one billion. (ANI)
How many of them will Kerry be accepting donations from???
And it's subsidiary,
A Prince Siddhartha bump.
You might be interested to know that Buddha's birth, activities, mother's name and birthplace are mentioned in the Bhagavat Purana, which was first set into writing around 3000BC, not long after the war recounted in the Mahabharat.
In another Purana (called the Bavishya Purana, about future events - Jesus and Mohammed are both mentioned, as well as Queen Victoria. That Purana is also from around the same time period, maybe a couple hundred years later.
Any religion whose followers DON'T slam planes into buildings or blow up buses is fine with me.
Sanskrit isn't even that old. You'll find the Purana is more recent.
According the Puranas themselves they are that old. It is only British Indologists who claim they are of recent origin, and they followed the Muslim invaders assesment of India, which is very biased. More recent scholarship is discovering a much more ancient time scale for not only Sanskrit but the entire Vedic culture.
There are descriptions in various Vedic texts of astronomical features that are incredibly ancient, described as viewed. One such stellar or planetary alignment has been found to be 26,000 years ago.
I will grant that it is pre-Roman, but whether it is even as old as Sumerians would take an amount of guesswork. Hope the Pakis leave something for future archeologists to dig up along the Indus. I suspect we don't know 1% of what could be known of those times, not even which aeon things belong to.
Last year (?) on FR there was an article about the discovery of ruins of a city under a bay on the eastern side of India, and the estimated age was 9500 years ago. Blam probably remembers it. There were (IIRC) shards, outlines of walls, whole houses and buildings (the lines where walls had been) timbers, and so on.
Yes. If they can find who lived there it would be fantastic, and possibly surprising.
I'll cast my vote for the 3,000BC date.
Here it is (see post #18 for possible writing), I'll post links to a couple more too.
Look for this to become the newest Muslim holy site.
"a city under a bay on the eastern side of India, and the estimated age was 9500 years ago. Blam probably remembers it"
Some of us are getting pretty old, but come on!
Those were the good 'ol days.
I generally reach supreme enlightenment after a couple of shots of single malt Bowmore and a Montecristo #2 on my back porch...
I knew I could count on you, blam...
My longterm memory IS getting a little fuzzy - I only remember this lifetime, and even that's getting hazy!
I recall that article quite well. The last great glacial melt flood was some 8500 years ago and I have been looking for more on the submerged city.
I agree with the British Indologists on that, not because of any Muslim assessment, but because I follow the empirical method and empirically we do not have any extant documents on Buddha's life which are that old. The extant copies of the Puranas date from between c. 400 BC and 1400 AD, and documents written after 400 BC are not and cannot be eyewitness sources on events from 3000 BC. Empirically we would need some sort of pre-Puranic evidence to support any traditions about Buddha being from 3000 BC. I am not aware of any such evidence. I am aware of the pre-Mohenjo-Daro find mentioned elsewhere in the thread, from previous discussions of this, but I would consider that evidence of early civilization in India rather than evidence of Buddha living c. 3000 BC.
Tasting the smokey peat of Lagvulin will enhance enlightenment, bring peace of spirit, and help you reach the green in regulation. Bowmore is popskull from the wrong side of the island:-)
I won't be too concerned with the dating of Sanskrit documents, just that classical Sanskrit was frozen in form at a particular date and that it is something that can be learned and read. English speakers already know Sanskrit, of course, it's just a matter of sorting which pieces of the language are Sanskrit and which are not since it is all jumbled together.
I follow you on that.
Somewhat unusual, but in any case I wouldn't follow too closely since the trail isn't well marked and there are cliffs, quagmires, and wild beasts every step of the way.
LOL! I'll try to watch out for those :) But I understand the point that classical Sanskrit has dateable stages of development which scholars have been studying for a while.
According the Puranas, Buddha's birth was predicted - to happen later. So there is no contradiction, rather there is agreement in the timing of his birth to be around 2600 years ago (IIRC).
The Puranas were an oral tradition before they were set in writing, and since the system in India was to write on palm leaves, which had a rather short life span, the four Vedas and their corollaries such as the Upanishads, Puranas and so on were copied and recopied continually, sometimes with new commentaries or additional material added. That is probably why some historians consider them of more recent origan; that and the fact that historians generally have a set idea of history and like things to fit into their theories rather than be open to different time scales.
That's where I'm seeing the issue. You can't document an oral tradition prior to its earliest verifiable transmission, and prior to that there's no verifiable way of knowing what happened to the tradition before it was committed to writing. That doesn't mean the tradition thereby isn't true--it may or may not be true in a given case--but it means a historian following the empirical method can't affirm an oral tradition as documented history until it's substantiated by some corroborating evidence. I agree with you on some historians having a set idea of history, but that isn't the issue here for me. The issue for me is that the documents we have don't date back as far as the events they're referring to, so they're not primary sources in the historical sense.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on, off, or alter the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
The GGG Digest -- Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)