The idea here is that when Upāli finished collected the Vinaya immediately after the Buddha's death he placed a dot on the manuscript.

if buddha dating-85if buddha dating-68

In fact there are four chronologies: This puts the death of the Buddha at 544/43 BCE and is accepted only by the Theravada tradition and not by scholars.

The main reason for doubting it is that it gives dates for Aśoka that conflict with the evidence from his rock edicts - he was evidently crowned in 268 BCE give or take a year, and therefore a gap of 60 years remains unaccounted for.

This date relies on texts which state that the coronation of Aśoka was exactly 100 years after the parinibbana, meaning that the Buddha died in 368 BCE.

However the problem here is that all ancient texts are not in agreement over the elapsed time. It is however supported by archaeological evidence and gained some heavy weight supporters.

Gombrich's answer to the problem of dating the Buddha came from a reassessment of the dates conveyed in records of Upāli successors as vinayadharas.

The age at which each pupil was ordained, memorised the vinaya and died is recorded in a number of texts.

Traditionally ages of monks are counted from their ordination, but Gombrich argues that in this case the ages where counted from birth.

Almost two years ago now I attended a series of lectures by Prof.

Richard Gombrich which I find still resonating around in my psyche. Gombrich talked about was his disappointment that his article in which he had discovered the 'true' dates of the Buddha had not attracted any attention from the scholarly community.