1
The B of ABC of Indian chronology: Dating Buddha's Parinirvāṇa,
A critique of Heinz Bechert’s echo chamber
Manogna Sastry
Bengaluru, India
manognashastry@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
The parinirvāṇa of Gautama Buddha is a
milestone of singular consequence in Indic
chronology, serving as the landmark for
dating most events which compose the
timeline of our history. In this paperi, the
authors use astronomical methods to
comprehensively compile, analyse, define
constraints and determine the unique
solution which meets the criteria considered
for the most probable year for the death of
Buddha. Subsequently, in light of recent
archaeological evidence, not only do we
demonstrate how key archaeology-related
conclusions in When did the Buddha live?ii
are acutely less tenable in 2019, but also
deduce and propose a terminus ante quem
(546 B.C.) for Buddha's death. Thereafter, in
the philology section, through a critical
synoptic analysis we identify problematics
that, in our assessment, vitiate the so-called
corrected long chronology, short
chronology and Heinz Bechert's proposal.
We believe this paper addresses a crucial
void in the post-1995 literature pertaining to
Buddha's chronological epoch in being
perhaps the first substantive critical
assessment of some aspects of the Bechert
volume, from an Indic lens, underpinned by
a scientific approach.
Megh Kalyanasundaram
Chennai, India
kalyanasundaram.megh@gmail.com
Author Key Words
Gautama Buddha, astronomy, archaeology,
philology, chronology, Heinz Bechert
INTRODUCTION
India’s self discovery, self fulfilment, her
unveiling is seen through not only the
countless creations of her land in art,
architecture, sciences and philosophies, but
the best of each stage of her journey is
personified in those whose lives have
become milestones in our unbroken
civilization. Be it a Kṛṣṇa Vāsudeva or a
Gautama Buddha or an Ādi Śaṇkara - their
profound significance in spiritual,
metaphysical aspects is matched in
consequence by their historical lives as well,
in bookmarking moments in Indic
Chronology. The birth and parinirvāṇa of
Gautama Buddha or Siddhārtha, the 24th
kśatriya ruler of the Śākya clan, belonging to
Gautama Gotra, marks a momentous
milestone, with it being a pivot around
which successive landmarks, including
several points of contact for players and
forces outside the Indian subcontinent, are
spun. And yet, despite the immensity
associated with this milestone, the
contestation concerning it is has been one
created by several forces throughout the past
few centuries.iii

Heinz Bechert, editor of the most
“...exhaustive treatment of the question of
the Buddha’s dates,”iv who has upheld
“correcting” (Bechert 1995:253) long
chronology, rejected both corrected long
chronologyv (Ibid.:19) and short
vi
chronology (Ibid.:285) in favor of his
proposal for Buddha’s Nirvāṇa between
“...ca. 400 B.C. and 350 B.C.,” (Ibid.:286)
has remarked that “most chronological
calculations concerning the age of
brahmanic literary works, on the
development of early middle Indic
languages, etc. are based on this date,
because both Western and South Asian
researchers made all relevant calculations
using this chronology as a starting point.”
(Ibid.:286) For Bechert, “...conclusions
drawn from textual materials are
corroborated by the evaluation of the
archaeological material presented by Herbert
Härtel” (Ibid.:285) while his volume
includes multiple instances where the
credibility of Indian tradition as a whole—in
handing down “...reliable chronological
information...”vii (Ibid.:254, 262) before
Alexander’s campaign in India—has been
sweepingly indicted.
In this paper, we use astronomical methods
to comprehensively collate, analyse,
establish constraints and determine the
unique solution which meets the criteria
considered for the most probable year for
the death of Buddha. Subsequently, in light
of recent archaeological evidence, not only
do we demonstrate how key archaeology-
related conclusions in Härtel’s essay are
2
acutely less tenable in 2019, but also deduce
and propose a terminus ante quem (546
B.C.) for Buddha's death. Thereafter, in the
philology section, through a critical synoptic
analysis we identify problematics that, in
our assessment, underpin the so-called
corrected long chronology, short
chronology, Heinz Bechert's proposal and
resolution of which would vitiate all three of
them.
CHRONICLING THE PARINIRVĀṆA
THROUGH THE LENS OF
ASTRONOMY
The astronomical approach to dating a
historical event begins with the data that is
embedded in the texts related to the subject.
Since the ancient times, astronomy in India,
including aspects of making calendars,
recording eclipses, equinoxes and lunar
phases along with developing cosmogonies,
was extensively practised to a good degree
of accuracy.
Among the native historical traditions and
records, the key books available to us to
search for any biographical references to
Buddha’s life are not many. The purāṇā-s
maintain that 37 kings of the Bṛhadratha,
Pradyota and Śisuṇga clans ruled over
Magadha similar to the ruler of the Ikśwāku-
s. Buddha was said to be seventy two years
old when Ajātaśatru ascended the throne,
while he attained enlightenment during the
rule of Bimbisāra. The purāṇā-s give
timelines for each of these kings. The
Vinaya and the Sutta-s are the sections to
probe, with the Mahāvigga from the former
and the Majjhima Nikāya from the latter

being the primary books. The Lalita Vistāra
and the Mālalaṇkāra Watthu are literary
pieces providing historical references as
well, with Mālalaṇkāra Watthu, translated
into Paul Bigandet’s two volume The Life
and Legend of Gaudama Buddha, becoming
a primary source for astronomical
references.
Recent endeavours to study Buddha’s
timeline using astronomical techniques
include the works of Pandit Kota
Venkatachelam, V. Thiruvenkatachariyar,
Swami Sakhyananda, Swamikannu Pillai,
P.C. Sengupta, Narahari Achar and Vedveer
Aryaviii. The blueprint to using astronomy
requires the identification, compilation,
verification of astronomically significant
events such as eclipses, solstices, lunar
phases and similar data points in Buddhist
works, along with the latitudes, longitudes
of the relevant places. Samyutta Nikāya,
Mālalaṇkāra Watthu and its english
translation by Bigandet contain references
that serve as the kernels for creating data
points for astronomical analysis;ix the works
of Pandit Kota Venkatachelam and Dr.
Swamikannu Pillai are based on the same,
though the conclusions arrived by them are
different. While the Pandit’s results
reinforce the traditional purāṇ-ic year of
1807 B.C as the year of parinirvāṇa, Dr.
Pillai concludes that 478 B.C is the year of
the death of Buddha. Ancient Indian
Chronology by Sengupta also contains
analysis of the year of the parinirvāṇa based
on the data in the Samyutta Nikāya and its
translation by Rhys David - The Book of
Kindred Sayings.
3
Methodology
The authors’ approach to using astronomical
techniques to study the year of parinirvāṇa
is set in three major stages. The first consists
of identifying and defining the astronomical
events which serve as the defining
constraints and markers to look for while
trying to identify the year of the death of
Buddha. The second consists of creating
master data sets of all the years considered
as that of the parinirvāṇa in two ways -
firstly by searching for the years that match
the constraints defined in the previous stage
using Stellarium software and secondly,
compiling years believed to be that of the
parinirvāṇa from across a range of various
traditions and sources including the purāṇ-ic
Indian, Colonial Indian, Singhalese,
Chinese, Tibetan, and Japanese. The third
stage consists of using NASA’s five
millennium solar and lunar eclipse
catalogues as well as Stellarium to apply the
constraints from the first stage to the master
data sets to narrow down the most viable
data points that satisfy the conditions set up.
With the above approach defined, we
consider the Samyutta Nikāya in which 9
deities, regarded as sons of the Deva-s are
referred to in the Devaputtasamyutta
Nikāya, with sutta-s on each deity -
Kassapa, Māgha, Magada, Damani,
Kamada, Pancalcanda, Tayana, Candima
and Sūriyo. The sutta-s contain the defining
astronomical constraints, located at the place
of Śrāvastī/Sāvatthī where Buddha stayed at
the time of the events, that have been used
by Dr. Sengupta, Professor Narahari Achar
as well as the present authors:

i) identification of Kassapa with the Vedic
god Prajāpati and hence the occurrence of
the winter solstice.
ii) the subsequent arrival of Māgha
Devaputta and by inference the lunar month
of Māgha, ending on a full moon near the
naksatra Puṣya.
iii) the subsequent eclipse of Candima, the
moon by Rāhu, lord of the asuras, thus
referring to the occurrence of a lunar eclipse
iv) the subsequent eclipse within a fortnight
of Sūriyo, the sun by Rāhu, thus referring to
the occurrence of a solar eclipse
With the above events assumed to have
taken place at Śrāvastī, where Buddha
stayed for three months, before travelling to
Kuśinagara where his eventual death took
place on Vaiśākha Pūrṇimā, we have a time
frame of three months to set boundaries for
the data under study and consequently
introduce the additional constraint that the
Vaiśākha Pūrṇimā must have occurred
before the Vernal Equinox of the year under
consideration. Professor Achar considers the
eclipses in the month of Māgha and an
interval of 90 days between the occurrence
of the Winter Solstice and the Vaiśākha
Pūrṇimā; we authors have chosen to define
an additional constraint that requires the
lunar eclipse to have occurred at the start of
the month and the solar eclipse at the
middle, relying on the phrase in the sutta
that Kassapa, Māgha, Candima and Sūriyo
visited in quick succession. While Dr.
Sengupta studies the time period 580 to -
483 B.C for the occurrence of these events
to narrow down on 544 B.C as the year
closest to the above criteria, Professor Achar
4
uses Planetarium software for a much vaster
range of dates between 1900 B.C to 400 B.C
and arrives at 1807 B.C as the most likely
year of the parinirvāṇax.
Study
Applying the constraints defined by the
sutta-s above, we create the first master data
set consisting of probable years of the death
of Buddha, between 2000 B.C - 300 B.C to
include in the probe the earliest and latest
years assigned to the parinirvāṇa by various
sources, through a search in Stellarium, and
consider the dates of winter solstice, lunar
and solar eclipses, lunar positions and
phases, the date of Vaiśākha Pūrṇimā and
the following Vernal Equinox; this master
table serves as the basis for further
analysis.xi We next require that the entire
chain of astronomical events - (i) the onset
of Winter Solstice (ii) the occurrence of
lunar and solar eclipses within a fortnight of
each other (iii) with the lunar eclipse
occurring close to the start of the month of
Māgha and consequently the solar eclipse
nearly at the middle of the month (iv) the
eventual passing of the Buddha on the full
moon of Vaiśākha before the onset of the
Vernal Equinox take place within a time
duration of 90 days. Thus, the data set
reduces to further to a narrower subset of
points as shown in Table 1, along with
snapshots of the stellarium charts. The year
which satisfies most accurately the
constraints imposed on it is the year 1807
B.C, rendering it as the most probable
year for the parinirvāṇa of the Buddha.
 5

The second master set consists of compiling Stellarium screenshots:

the year believed to be that of the death of
Buddha from across a range of sources -
Pandit Kota Venkatachelam, V.G
Ramachandran, Narahari Achar, D.S
Triveda, K.D. Sethna, Raja Ram Mohan
Roy, the Tamil Epic Manimekhalai, Abu’l
Fazl, traditional Chinese, Bamboo Annals
along with 5 other Chinese sources, Tantric
texts, Theravada Buddhist based 20 sources,
6 Japanese sources and post colonial Sri
Lankan sources.xii From this master list, we
apply the constraints defined in the previous Lunar eclipse of 26 January, 1807 B.C
section to narrow down the range of dates
which meet the criteria as well as have not
been covered in Table 1. The final result of
this exercise is interesting as we found that
none of the years apart from those already
covered in the previous table - neither the
corrected long chronology, nor the short
chronology nor the dotted records satisfy the
constraints. Thus, the most probable year
for the parinirvāṇa of the Buddha
remains the same as what we derived
from the previous method i.e 1807 B.C, Position of lunar eclipse in the sky
the result which also agrees with that of
Pandit Kota Venkatachelam, V.G
Ramachandran and Narahari Achar.

Solar eclipse of 10 February, 1807 B.C

 6

Table 1

Year in B.C Winter Lunar Eclipse in B.C Solar Eclipse in B.C Vaiśākha Vernal Equinox Time period between
Solstice in Pūrṇima in in B.C Winter Solstice and
B.C B.C Vaiśākha Pūrṇima

1807 5 January 26 January at Pūrva 10 February mid-way into the 26 March 6 April < 90 days
Phālguṇa month of Māgha

1694 4 January 7 January at Māgha 22 January, mid-way into the 6 April 6 Apr > 90 days
month of Māgha

1192 31 December 7 January at Māgha 21 January in the middle of 5 April 1 Apr > 90 days
Māgha

1138 31 December 9 February outside Uttara 23 February in the middle of 9 April 1 Apr > 90 days
Phālguṇa Māgha

1119 31 December 9 February at Uttara 23 February in the middle of 9 April 1 Apr > 90 days
Phālguṇa Māgha

1062 31 December 10 January at Māgha 25 January in the middle of 8 April 31 Mar > 90 days
Māgha

1007 31 December 1 February at Pūrva 15 February in the middle of 1 April 31 Mar Exactly 90 days
Phālguṇa Māgha

765 28 December 26 January at 10 February in the middle of 27 March 28 Mar < 90 days
PūrvaPhālguṇa Māgha

690 28 December 7 January at Māgha 22 January in the middle of 6 April 28 Mar > 90 days
Māgha

560 27 December 9 January at Māgha 25 January in the middle of 9 April 27 Mar > 90 days
Māgha

486 26 December 31 January at Pūrva 15 February in the middle of 11 April 27 Mar > 90 days
Phālguṇa Māgha

477 26 December 22 January at Māgha 06 February in the middle of 20 April 26 Mar > 90 days
Māgha

ARCHAEOLOGY
Methodology
In Herbert Härtel’s essayxiii—the only one in
the Heinz Bechert’s volume focused
singularly on archaeology—Härtel
concludes: “The scouting through the
Buddhist sites has, if a conclusion can be
drawn at all, rouse doubt in our mind if all
the places where the Buddha lived or which
he is said to have visited, existed already in
the 6th century B.C.” (Härtel 1995:159). In
this section, citing archaeological evidence
post-1995, we demonstrate that of Härtel’s
analysis for nine sitesxiv—those he considers
“...the most important...” (Härtel 1995:143)
of “...all the places where the Buddha lived
and which he is said to have visited...”
(Ibid.)—the conclusions he reaches for at
least sixxv are acutely less tenable in 2019.
Study
1. Vaiśālī: “The date of the earliest
habitation of Vaiśālī is to be fixed rather
around 500 B.C.” (Härtel 1995:149)
2. Srāvastī: “Although the date for the
fortifications is, in our opinion,
estimated too late, Srāvastī is in all
probability not older than sixth century
B.C.” (Härtel 1995:148)
3. Kauśāmbī: “In the light of the pottery
and associated finds a date not earlier
than sixth century B.C. is in all
probability very near the truth.” (Härtel
1995:147)
4. Rājagṛha (Rajgir): “As it remains
explained whether some of the
associated wares found again together
with NBP have an earlier origin, the time
7
of the rise of Rājagṛha can at best be
pushed down to 500 B.C. after these
results.” (Härtel 1995:145)
In No Dark Age in Indian History:
Archaeological Evidence, Mani has included
Vaiśālī, Srāvastī, Kauśāmbī and Rājagṛh in
the list of places for which he has
concluded: “In view of the archaeological
evidence from the sites of the
mahajanapadas it could be authentically
concluded that these political principalities
and states were well established during the
second millennium BCE,...” (Mani
2013:44) [Emphasis ours]. Mani has
subsequently stated the evidence of
settlements at these city states of the great
Mahajanapadas goes “...back to the second
millennium BCE from … Kaushambi and
Jhusi in Vatsa; … Sravasti, Lahuradewa,
Siswania in Kosala; … Rajgir, Chirand and
Jaufardih (Nalanda) in Magadha; Vaisali
and Lauriya Nandangarh in Vrijli, ...” (Mani
2017:30) [Emphasis ours]. Seen in the light
of Mani’s statements above, Härtel’s
conclusions for 1-4—of neither of them
showing habitation before 600 B.C.—are, in
our assessment, acutely less tenable in 2019.
5. Bodhgayā: “Only recently, from 1981-
85, as far as the reports are printed, the
Directorate of Archaeology and
Museums, Government of Bihar, carried
out excavations under A.K. Prasad at the
mound of Taradih, lying to the south of
the Māhabodhi temple. It now appears
that this region was a very old settlement
area reaching back to chalcolithic
times.” (Härtel 1995:144) [Emphasis
ours]

The above statement is problematic on two
grounds. First, if Härtel has concluded that
this region was a very old settlement area
reaching back to chalcolithic times, how can
he use this sectional conclusion to support
this final conclusion statementxvi? Second,
and to remove any doubt about chalcolithic
period for Taradih (along with Kauśāmbī),
consider the following: a) “Of the explored
sites, about two dozen have been excavated
so far (Misra, B.B. 2000 : 66). Important
among them are Kakoria, … Kausambi, …
Taradih, ... in the Ganga Valley.” (Singh
2004:147) [Emphasis ours]; b) “The
radiocarbon dates … indicate that
Chalcolithic cultures were firmly
established around 2000 B.C. on sites in
Bihar and by about 1500 B.C. in the
Sarayupar plain.” (Singh 2004:153)
[Emphasis ours]; c) “The Chalcolithic
phase started at around the first half of
3rd millennium BCE and continues up to
the 1st millennium BCE.” (Mishra and
Hazarika 2013:325) [Emphasis ours]; d) In
the subsequent Chalcolithic period, some
new sites appear with continuation of above
mentioned sites. The prominent excavated
sites are ..., Taradih IB, II.” (Mishra and
Hazarika 2013:327) [Emphasis ours]
6. Lumbinī: “It is more than probable that
the first settlements in Lumbinī do not
reach even the 5th century B.C.” (Härtel
1995:144)
According to Coningham et. al.
“Radiocarbon samples from two
contemporary posthole fills (contexts 553
and 557) provided dates of 799-546 BC
and 801-548 BC (Table 1), suggesting an
extremely early delineation of sacred
8
space within this locality, and pushing
activity at Lumbini far before the reign of
Asoka” (Coningham 2013:1109). [Emphasis
ours] “Furthermore, if the posthole
alignment is related to the earliest
veneration of the Buddha, shortly after
his mahāparanirvāṇa, we may also have
the first archaeological evidence
regarding the date of the life of Buddha.”
(Coningham 2013:1121) [Emphasis ours].
From these two statements, we deduce a
terminus ante quem of Buddha’s death—not
after 546 BCE—in contrast to i) a presume
terminus post quem of 6th century B.C. ii)
Härtel’s conclusive statement cited at the
start of this subsection.
PHILOLOGY
Methodology
Methods adopted in this section include
synoptic analysis and textual criticism.xvii
Study
According to Bechert, Siglinde Dietz’s essay
is a detailed presentation from “...the earliest
period of relevant European publications…”
(Bechert 1995:21) and that “...a new period
of research begins with the calculation of the
“corrected long chronology” by George
Turnour in 1837.” (Ibid.) Bechert
unequivocally asserts that “...“the corrected
long chronology” was created by modern
Western scholars...” (Bechert 1995:261).
According to Dietz, until 1837, when
Turnour “...brought out his edition of the
Mahāvamsa, the dates of the Buddha that
had been handed down in the written
sources were regarded more or less credible
facts.” (Dietz 1995:54) What were the dates

Turnour might have known about? First,
while Dietz herself mentions in part II—The
Middle Period (from 1837)—of her essay
“...that according to Brahminical
chronology, the rule of Candragupta began
in 1502 B.C….,” (Dietz 1995:55) this data
point is conspicuously absent in part I—The
Early Period (until 1836)—in which we
authors came across at least 27xviii, starting
from Matthieu Ricci (1584) to Jonathan
Forbes (1836), which we have grouped into
these categoriesxix: Siamese, Singhalese,
Both, Christian, Chinese, Tibetan, N/Axx. As
should be evident from the tabulations,
while 542 B.C. was clearly not the only
candidate year for Buddha’s death, not only
did H.H. Wilson, as reported by Dietz, go on
to correct “an author’s chronology
(Kalhana’s) on the basis of...542 B.C.,”
(Dietz 1995:54) [and in the process shifting
“...Gonanda III’s accession to throne from
1182 B.C. to the year 388 B.C...” (Dietz
1995:49)], but Turnour also saw “...no
tenable plea on which...the death of Sakya in
B.C. 542...” (Dietz 1995:55) could be
questioned. However, a genealogical trace
of the evidence on which ~B.C. 542 rested
(summarised in this stemmata-viewxxi)
reveals, in our assessment, rather startlingly,
absence of any dated primary source
indigenous to the Indic tradition (text or
inscription)! It is also to be noted Dietz
reports that Burnouf in 1826 even gave an
explanation reconciling another epoch—a
Japanese one for Nirvāna in 950 B.C.—with
the Singhalese era as follows: “...this,
though, is not the true date of the
Buddha’s Nirvāna, 543 B.C. being the
date of the death of the patriarch who
first introduced the Buddhist teaching to
9
the Singhalese, whereas 950 is the true date
of the Nirvāna of the Buddha Sākyamuni.”
(Dietz 1995:51) [Emphasis ours] Despite
existence of this explanation—also recall
existence of what Dietz called Brahmanical
chronology: rule of Candragupta began in
1502 B.C—Singhalese tradition (~B.C. 542)
got currency over all others as Turnour saw
“...no tenable plea on which...the death of
Sakya in B.C. 542...” (Dietz 1995:55) could
be questioned. While on the one hand,
Turnour prioritized the Singhalese tradition
over the so-called Brahmanical one
(amongst others), he also conjectured “...an
intentional perversion to the extent of about
60 years…between the date of Sákya
Sinha’s death and that of the accession of
Chandragupta” (Dietz 1995:56)—despite
admitting it was “...not readily
discoverable...” (Ibid.)—clearly to uphold
“European traditions” (Dietz 1995:55) over
the Singhalese one and in the process
accommodate and preserve another
conjecture—posited for the first time by a
fellow-European William Jones a few
decades prior—the Candragupta Maurya-
Sandracottus synchronismxxii. If for instance,
going only by the resemblance perceived,
had Jones conjectured Sandracottus was not
Maurya-Candragupta but Gupta-
Candragupta, Turnour would have had to
reconcile a difference not of about 60 years
but of several centuries! Therefore, in two
steps—first, arbitrarily prioritizing
Singhalese tradition over all others thereby
reducing the margin of reconciliation that
might have been needed had Sandracottus
been Gupta-Candragupta and not Maurya-
Candragupta and thereafter, in step two,
faulting the same Singhalese tradition
 10

thereby preserving William Jones’s “...“corrected long chronology” cannot be

synchronism—Turnour “...established what upheld any longer,” (Bechert 1995:19) we
was later on termed as the “corrected” long assert that Bechert’s uncritical acceptance of
chronology” (Bechert 1995:12) which, one of the basis for the corrected long
according to Bechert, “...was proposed with chronology—the synchronism— leaves both
minor variations ranging from 486 B.C. to his position and the short chronology
477 B.C. as the date given for the demise of vulnerable if the synchronism is either
the Buddha...” (Bechert 1995:13) and “...has reconsidered criticallyxxiv or rejected.
served as something of a bedrock for
Indian chronology, and most of the
approximate dates which were assigned to CONCLUSION
early Indian literary works depended on
this very date, which was widely used to Astronomy
The conditions used to compile and analyse
represent the first historical date in Indian
the years of the parinirvāṇa by the authors
history. Thus, dates assigned to the
consist of the interpretations given to the
Brāhmaṇa literature “ca. 1000 B.C.,” the
astronomical markers found in the Buddhist
earlier Upanishads and Sutrās “ca. 800-
texts Samyutta Nikāya and
500 B.C.” etc. etc., which has been repeated
Devaputtasamyutta Nikāya regarding the
over and over again since the time of Max
i) identification of Kassapa with Prajāpati
Müller, were based on this chronological
and winter solstice ii) Māgha Devaputta
information.” (Ibid.) [Emphasis ours]
with the lunar month of Māgha, ending on a
While Bechert has asserted that the
full moon near Puṣya iii) the subsequent
corrected long chronology was “...further
occurrence of lunar eclipse i.e Candima,
confirmed by the decipherment of the
engulfed by Rāhu iv) the following solar
Aśokan inscriptions and the identification of
eclipse within a fortnight i.e Sūriyo,
contemporary Greek rulers mentioned on
engulfed by Rāhu v) the above events must
them,” (Bechert 1995:12) it should be noted
have taken place at Śrāvastī before Buddha’s
that in the 19th century, when the so-called
parinirvāṇa at Kuśinagara three months
Aśokan inscriptions were ascribed a
later, vi) the requirement of Vaiśākha
chronological epoch, the method of carbon
Pūrṇima occurring within a period of 90
dating itself was not discovered. The actual
days from that of the winter solstice as well
dating ascribed to the so-called Aśokan
as before the following vernal equinox. The
inscriptions, hence, was a derivative of the
authors’ use Stellarium software to narrow
corrected long chronology. Finally, given
down the year between 2000 B.C to 300 B.C
both short chronology and Bechert’s own
as well as compiling the years regarded by
positionxxiii differ from corrected long
relevant Buddhist traditions across a
chronology primarily with regard to the
spectrum and analyse which of those meet
question of how many years separated
the criteria, using NASA’s five millennium
Buddha’s death from Aśoka’s coronation,
lunar and solar eclipses and Stellarium. The
and even though Bechert has claimed the
above efforts lead the authors to incline

towards 1807 B.C as the most probable year
of the parinirvāṇa of Gautama Buddha.
Archaeology
If Härtel’s essay is academically the most
comprehensive, significant archaeological
assessment pertaining to the dating of
Buddha, in our view his results for at least
six of nine sites are acutely less tenable. For
his essay to be seen as corroboration for
results from other methods—to place
Buddha’s parinirvāṇa any time after the
middle of sixth century BCE—would not be
robust anymore. If Coningham et. al.’s
results stand the test of time, the year 546
BCE marks, for us authors, a terminus ante
quem for the parinirvāṇa of Buddha until
newer, more robust findings emerge.
Philology
If Dietz’s essay is the most comprehensive
documentation of the dating of Buddha’s
parinirvāṇa, our synoptic examination of
sources for 27 positions found in The Early
Period (before 1837) of her essay reveal a)
absence of dated primary source indigenous
to the Indic tradition (text or inscription) b)
how long, corrected long, short and
Bechert’s chronology are underpinned by
first a selection bias (evident from the so-
called Brahmanical data point being ignored,
which was upheld even by 19th century
western scholars like MA Troyerxxv who was
no Brahmin and called out the need to reject
eurocentrismxxvi), then a hasty
generalisation, as should be evident from
questionable prioritization of 542 B.C. as the
year of Buddha’s parinirvāṇa, followed by a
confirmation bias as evidenced by the
arbitrary “correction” to 542 B.C. in order
11
to ensure consistency with Candragupta
(Maurya) - Sandrakottos synchronism before
rejecting the corrected long chronology on
other grounds whilst retaining the
synchronism effect. Fixing the epoch of
Candragupta Maurya through this
questionable synchronism, on its basis
Aśoka and hence that of the Buddha and
everything prior to that in ancient Indian
history, with selective admission of details
from Indic sources only insofar as they align
with the Greek or Judeo-Christian
narratives, doesn’t seem at all either
scientific or ethically critical. In today’s
scientific, post-colonial era of history
writing, Greek sources, Judeo-Christian
chronology need not be seen as the absolute,
gold standard into which narratives from
other cultures need to necessarily fit in.
Casting aspersions on using verifiable
astronomical methods while at the same
time upholding conjectural synchronisms
backed by arbitrary methods in the garb of
“Critical Method”xxvii (Adluri and Bagchee
2014:356) smacks of hypocrisy, colonial
and/or ideological aggression under the garb
of a neutral academic method.
REFERENCES
i
This paper is part of an ongoing series that the
authors have called The ABC of Indian chronology:
the Aryan issue (https://bit.ly/2HDKI1f), the epochs
of Buddha, Bhārata war and Candragupta.
ii Volume, edited by Heinz Bechert, enlisted in “other
tectonic shifts” in Revolutions in Indology
https://bit.ly/2EwHk7A
iii This is one way to summarize some of the different
positions on Buddha’s epoch: https://bit.ly/2BaiVBG
iv See in page 3 of this isites.Harvard.edu link:
https://bit.ly/2BhIb8k (link now retired)
v “...formulated the view that the “corrected long
chronology” cannot be upheld any longer.”

vi “Later I clearly stated that there is no basis for
accepting the short chronology as a historical date.”
vii “Indian tradition has, however, not handed down
any other reliable chronological information which
pertains to the period before Alexander’s campaign
of India,…” (Bechert 1995:254)
“This presupposition becomes still more problematic
if we recall that Indian tradition has not handed down
any other reliable chronological information which
pertains to the period before Alexander’s campaign in
India,..” (Bechert 1995:262)
viii
Refer Arya, Vedveer The Date of Buddha
https://www.academia.edu/28219073/The_Date_of_
Buddha_Nirvana Accessed in 2018 September
ix
Refer to Sastry, Kalyanasundaram Dating Gautama
Buddha’s Parinirvāṇa, A Critique of Heinz Bechert’s
Echo Chamber, The Mythic Society Journal Volume
109 Issue No 4, pp 83-122
x xxvii
See B.N Achar A short note on The date of Buddha
nirvāṇa using Planetarium Software
xi
Refer to Sastry, Kalyanasundaram
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1AniDPiTZKrmU
MQbot2CPlGwFCWOMRkT_
xii
Refer to Sastry, Kalyanasundaram
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1AniDPiTZKrmU
MQbot2CPlGwFCWOMRkT_
xiii
Archaeological Research on Ancient Buddhist
Sites
xiv
“...Kapilavastu, Bodhgayā, Sārnāth, Rājagṛha,
Srāvastī, Sārnāth, Kauśāmbī, Vaiśālī, Lumbinī,
Kuśinagara.” (Härtel 1995:143)
xv
Vaiśālī, Srāvastī, Kauśāmbī, Rājagṛha, Bodhgayā,
Lumbinī. Härtel’s assertions for these six atleast have
some conclusions to assess vis-a-vis the other three.
xvi
“The scouting through the Buddhist sites has …
rouse doubt in our mind if all the places … existed
already in the 6th century B.C.” (Härtel 1995:159)
xvii
http://libguides.usc.edu/humanitiesresearch
xviii
See Table 8 in Sastry, Kalyanasundaram:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1IN5wv0wgVTfe
M9LteJKQB_dZnl8IkY-4
xix
See Table 9 in Sastry, Kalyanasundaram:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=18LtDYiIXZxNjw
Gqiiz-4mjmLO0zWwhjQ
xx
Note absence of so-called Brahmanical chronology
xxi
See Stemmata-view in Sastry, Kalyanasundaram:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=15VufwuzEUm8k
qOPcYEGBPsxvPYeBP0jq
xxii
At least 11 previously published works have
critiqued the proposal of this so-called synchronism.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1YtV-
mYcTSTihV0OVpno2Qb4Dy_UnowUA
xxiii
“...I suggested that “the Buddha’s Nirvāna may be
12
dated between about 80 to 130 years before Aśokā’s
coronation, …,” i.e. between ca. 400 B.C. and ca. 350
B.C..” (Bechert 1995:286)
xxiv
Ref. op cit. xxii: Alternatives proposed for
Sandracottus have included Gupta-Candragupta,
Samudragupta
xxv
“...ce Tchandragupta qui, d'après les Hindus, a
vécu 1502 ans avant l'ère chrétienne, ni un
contemporain de ce Sandracottus qui fut en relation
avec Séleucus,...” (Troyer 1840:388)
Translation: ... that Chandragupta which, according
to the Hindus, lived 1502 years before the Christian
era, nor a contemporary of this Sandracottus who was
in relation with Seleucus, ...
xxvi
“...il faut sur- tout laisser de côté les opinions des
écrivains européens de nos jours.” (Troyer 1852:393)
Translation: ... we must above all leave aside the
opinions of European writers today.
In-depth analysis: Problems with the Critical
Method (Adluri and Bagchee 2014:357-432)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Adluri, Vishwa and Bagchee, Joydeep (2014). The
Nay Science A History of German Indology. New
Delhi: Oxford University Press
2. Aśvagoṣa The Buddha-Carita, or The Life of
Buddha Edited and Translated by Edward B Cowell.
(2005). New Delhi: (First published in 1936, Lahore)
Sacred Books of the East
3. Bechert, Heinz (1995). WHEN DID THE
BUDDHA LIVE? The Controversy on the Dating of
the Historical Buddha. New Delhi: Sri Sathguru
Publications, Indological and Oriental Publishers, A
Division of India Books Center.
4. Bhikku Bodhi (2000). The Connected Discourses
of Buddha A New Translation of the Saṃyutta
Nikāya. Massachusetts: Wisdom Publications,
Somerville.
5. Bigandet, P. (1880). The Life or Legend of
Gaudama The Buddha of the Burmese Volumes 1 and
2. London: Trübner and Co, Ludgate Hill.
6. Coningham, R., Acharya, K., Strickland, K.,
Davis, C., Manuel, M., Simpson, I, . . . Sanderson, D.
(2013). The earliest Buddhist shrine: Excavating the
birthplace of the Buddha, Lumbini (Nepal),
Antiquity, 87(338), 1104-1123. Doi:
10.1017/S0003598X00049899
7. Dietz, Siglinde (1995). The Dating of the
Historical Buddha in the History of Western
Scholarship up to 1980 (pp. 39-105), ed. Bechert,
Heinz (1995), WHEN DID THE BUDDHA LIVE?
 13

The Controversy on the Dating of the Historical 18. Sengupta, Prabodh Chandra (1947). Ancient
Buddha. New Delhi: Sri Sathguru Publications, Indian Chronology. Calcutta: University of Calcutta.
Indological and Oriental Publishers, A Division of 19. Singh, Purushottam (2004). Archaeology of the
India Books Center. Middle Ganga Plain The Chalcolithic Phase, Studies
8. Härtel, Herbert (1995). Archeological Research on in Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol 11, No 2, p.
Ancient Buddhist sites (pp. 141-159), ed. Bechert, 141-157
Heinz (1995), WHEN DID THE BUDDHA LIVE? 20. The Play in Full: Lalitavistara (2013), translated
The Controversy on the Dating of the Historical by the Dharmachakra Translation Committee
Buddha. New Delhi: Sri Sathguru Publications, Published by 84000: Translating the Words of the
Indological and Oriental Publishers, A Division of Buddha.
India Books Center. 21. Troyer, MA (1840). RÂDRJATARANGINÎ
9. Kannan, R. (2000). Holistic Approach to Dating in HISTOIRE DES ROIS DU KACHMIR. Tome I. Paris:
Ancient History Especially Indian History. Chennai: IMPRIMÉ PAR AUTORISATION DE M. LE
Published by The Commissioner of Museums, GARDE DES SCEAUX, A L'IMPRIMERIE
Government Museum, Chennai ROYALE, M DCCC XL
10. Lamotte, E. (1988). History of Indian Buddhism. 22. Troyer, MA (1852). RÂDRJATARANGINÎ
LOUVAIN-LA-NEUVE: UNIVERSITE HISTOIRE DES ROIS DU KACHMIR. Tome II.
CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN, INSTITUT Paris: IMPRIMÉ PAR AUTORISATION DE M. LE
ORIENTALISTE Peeters Publishers. Leuven, GARDE DES SCEAUX, A L'IMPRIMERIE
Belgium ROYALE, M DCCC XL
11. Mak, Bill (2015). Indian Jyotiṣa Through the 23. Venkatachelam, Kota (1956). Age of Buddha,
Lens of Chinese Buddhist Canon. Hong Kong: Milinda & Amtiyoka and Yugapurana. Kollur: Ajanta
Journal of Oriental Studies Volume 48 No 1 Co Art Printers.
published by The School of Chinese, The University 24. Warder, A.K (2000). Indian Buddhism. New
of Hong Kong, Centre for Chinese Language and Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, (First Edition 1970).
Cultural Studies, Stanford University and Chung
Hwa Boo Co
12. Mani, B.R. (2013). No Dark Age in Indian
History: Archaeological Evidence. New Delhi:
Dialogue Quarterly Vol. 15, No. 1, Focus: India’s
Chronological Antiquity, Astha Bharati.
13. Mani, B.R. (2017). Emergence of Historical
Urbanisation: Chronological Sequence. New Delhi:
National Seminar on Antiquity, Continuity and
Development of Civilization and Culture in Bharat
(India) up to 1st Millennium BC Abstracts, Indian
Council of Historical Research.
14. Mishra, Kulbushan and Hazarika, Manjil (2013).
A glimpse of the Neolithic-Chalcolithic Cultures of
Eastern and Northeast India (pp. 323-344), ed. Rag,
Pankaj, Shinde Vasant, Mishra, Om Prakash (2013),
ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY OF MADHYA
PRADESH AND ADJOINING REGIONS: RECENT
PERSPECTIVES. Bhopal: Madhya Pradesh
Madhyam for the Directorate of Archaeology,
Archives and Museums, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh,
15. Nakamura, Hajime (2001). Gotama Buddha: A
Biography Based on the Most Reliable Texts Vol 1.
Tokyo: Kosei Publishing Company.
16. Sate, Shriram (1987). Dates of Gautama Buddha.
Hyderabad: Bharatiya Itihasa Sankalana Samiti.
17. Saunders, Kenneth James (1920). Gotama
Buddha – A Biography. New York: Association
Press.