Buddhism in Asia
Since Dr. Jurewicz’s article has been published, I shall not here attempt to reproduce her very rich argument, but only to give its gist.
As an example, I quote from publications of a modern Buddhist author from Sri Lanka, G.H. de Zoysa.
and as Heinz Bechert asserts, is “accepted by the Sinhalese Buddhists of Sri Lanka as well as by Theravada Buddhists in Southeast Asia.”
to which we will return
Space obviously would not permit a full review of the wide range of papers included in these volumes. Let us then simply note that
… “that Buddha died within a few years of 480 B.C.” – to quote from the Cambridge History of India
In addition to the individuals cited above, studies by Etienne Lamotte, Hajime Nakamura, P.H. Eggermont, Gananath Obeyesekere, Akira Hirakawa, K.R. Norman, Oskar von Hinuber, Richard Gombrich, David Seyfort Ruegg, and many others are considered.
Therefore various attempts have been made to read a workable consensus, but the majority of South Asian and Western scholars on the one hand and that of Japanese scholars on the other remain divided over the issue.
.. the number of years that passed between the death of the Buddha and the appearance of Asoka was 116
In his learned paper, he discusses the history of research in this field with rich bibliography information
not before the first century BC is there any evidence that the years of events were recorded in well-defined eras
In this context, I should also like to quote the relevant remark by T.W.Rhys Davids in The Cambridge History of India:
Here we read:
A few salient facts about the history of NE Thailand must be set out before we can examine the millennialism that occurred in the area.
We shall illustrate this with the case of Ceylon.
This statement is generally intertwined with a story that the Buddhist teachings would have survived for a full 1,000 years, were it not for the Buddha’s decision to admit women to the monastic order.
With regard to
As an example, I quote from publications of a modern Buddhist author from Sri Lanka, G.H. de Zoysa.
and as Heinz Bechert asserts, is “accepted by the Sinhalese Buddhists of Sri Lanka as well as by Theravada Buddhists in Southeast Asia.”
to which we will return
Space obviously would not permit a full review of the wide range of papers included in these volumes. Let us then simply note that
… “that Buddha died within a few years of 480 B.C.” – to quote from the Cambridge History of India
In addition to the individuals cited above, studies by Etienne Lamotte, Hajime Nakamura, P.H. Eggermont, Gananath Obeyesekere, Akira Hirakawa, K.R. Norman, Oskar von Hinuber, Richard Gombrich, David Seyfort Ruegg, and many others are considered.
Therefore various attempts have been made to read a workable consensus, but the majority of South Asian and Western scholars on the one hand and that of Japanese scholars on the other remain divided over the issue.
.. the number of years that passed between the death of the Buddha and the appearance of Asoka was 116
In his learned paper, he discusses the history of research in this field with rich bibliography information
not before the first century BC is there any evidence that the years of events were recorded in well-defined eras
In this context, I should also like to quote the relevant remark by T.W.Rhys Davids in The Cambridge History of India:
Here we read:
A few salient facts about the history of NE Thailand must be set out before we can examine the millennialism that occurred in the area.
We shall illustrate this with the case of Ceylon.
This statement is generally intertwined with a story that the Buddhist teachings would have survived for a full 1,000 years, were it not for the Buddha’s decision to admit women to the monastic order.
With regard to