//honeypot demagogic

 Forum DhammaCitta. Forum Diskusi Buddhis Indonesia

Author Topic: Kuil Buddha tertua ditemukan di Nepal  (Read 15563 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline seniya

  • Global Moderator
  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 3.467
  • Reputasi: 169
  • Gender: Male
  • Om muni muni mahamuni sakyamuni svaha
Re: Kuil Buddha tertua ditemukan di Nepal
« Reply #15 on: 05 December 2013, 07:42:23 PM »
Kita perlu hati-hati. Abad ke-6 SM atau tahun 600 SM? Setahu saya dalam berita dikatakan penemuan tersebut berasal dari abad ke-6 SM.

Saya pribadi menyimpulkan, dengan penemuan tersebut bisa berarti penanggalan kelahiran Pangeran Siddhattha yang ada dalam tradisi yaitu 623 SM kemungkinan besar benar.

Pemberitaan media kadangkala tidak jelas atau bahkan menyesatkan. Menurut link yang saya temukan (yang ditulis berdasarkan laporan jurnal ilmiah penemunya):

Previously Indian archaeology related to Buddhism has tended to focus on the large brick structures erected by Asoka ca. mid 3rd century BC. Some of the reasons for this are obvious - bricks survive and big piles of them are easy to find. The centuries have frequently buried sites under meters of soil, and sometimes only these large mounds still stand out. Some of the earlier work on these monuments showed that they were build around pre-existing monuments. Existing stupas were frequently enlarged in stages, each one encapsulating the previous structure. But on the whole we have no archaeological evidence that predates Asoka. Coningham has dubbed this the "Mauryan Horizon" and the exciting thing is that these new discoveries appear to penetrate beyond that horizon.

At the temple site the earlier team had stopped digging in the central area when they discovered a pavement edged by two rows of bricks of a different size and shape to the traditional Asokan bricks (which are broader and flatter than modern bricks). This pavement clearly ran under the foundations of the Asokan structure and was partly incorporated into the foundations. Below this pavement the present team identified two previous "phases". Below the kerb itself was a series of (irregular) post-holes suggesting that the kerb followed the line of a previous wooden fence. Samples from the fill in these post holes were radiocarbon dated to 799-546 BC and 801-548 BC. Note the broad range of values here: 253 years in both cases. Still, even the upper dates are still much earlier than any previously associated with Buddhist archaeology, if indeed the structure is Buddhist. A problem here is that if the post-holes are Buddhist and the 801 or 799 BC date is accurate, then we have to re-write history much more drastically. The press releases carefully ignore the more distant (and less credible) end of the date range.


Tetapi karena ini belum terbukti sebagai peninggalan Buddhis, bisa jadi ini dibangun sebelum masa Sang Buddha:

There is no doubt whatever that the find at Lumbini is significant and fascinating. But Coningham et al (and Coningham himself) have overstated the claims for what this find signifies. In particular it tells us nothing whatever about the dates of the Buddha. What it tells us about is the dates of human occupation and use of the site at Lumbini. This is intrinsically interesting, but is only an outline that requires considerable filling in. Specifically it tells us nothing about who the occupants were. The authors of the article seem to have been carried away by the minutiae of the discovery and the assumption that all archaeology on an Asokan site is ipso facto Buddhist.

We have no indication that the underlying layers were in fact Buddhist. Such evidence as is presented -- e.g. that the site may have been a tree shrine -- is ambiguous, and in most cases the language of the article, contra the press release, is carefully hedged and qualified as one would expect in a scientific paper. Such questions as the alignment of the different layers at the site; the unknown fate of the tree in the shrine; and the type of fence suggested by the post holes; all seem to point away from a strong connection to the Asokan layer or a relationship with other Buddhist structures. If anything the evidence suggests a discontinuity. If the suggestion is that the layers under the Asokan structure represent the activity of Buddhists, some extraordinary evidence will be required. Something far more typical of Buddhists must be linked with the layers in question. Until then there is no question of revisiting the dates of the Buddha. There seems to be false reasoning linking all activity on the site with Buddhism because Asoka thought that Lumbini was the birthplace of the Buddha. Even the Buddhist tradition allows that the Śākyas had lived in the area for some time, so why should the activity be pre-Buddhist? Were the Śākyas unlikely to build tree shrines or even temples? Though I have speculated that they might have had residual Zoroastrian beliefs we in fact no nothing for certain about the tribe the Buddha was born into. But they must have had beliefs and acted them out since all humans do.

I imagine that a great deal remains to be done and some interesting discoveries lie in wait beyond the "Mauryan Horizon". But we have learned nothing definite about the origins of Buddhism from this research, let alone about the lifetime of the Buddha. Normally when confronting a gap between the evidence and the media reports I would lambaste science journalists for sloppy reporting and a poor understanding of the scientific process. It is all too common. But in this case the study itself has some flaws, and Professor Coningham seems to have played up the connection with the lifetime of the Buddha despite having no real evidence. Media reports largely seemed to regurgitate an undigested press-release that can only have come from the authors or publishers of the article. I think this is unfortunate.
« Last Edit: 05 December 2013, 07:49:14 PM by Shinichi »
"Holmes once said not to allow your judgement to be biased by personal qualities, and emotional qualities are antagonistic to clear reasoning."
~ Shinichi Kudo a.k.a Conan Edogawa

Offline K.K.

  • Global Moderator
  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 8.850
  • Reputasi: 268
Re: Kuil Buddha tertua ditemukan di Nepal
« Reply #16 on: 13 December 2014, 12:03:46 PM »
Kumpulan fakta:

1. Di bawah Kuil Maya Devi terdapat altar yang berusia lebih tua.
2. Carbon Dating menunjukkan tahun 800 BC - 550 BC.


Informasi yang dibangun arkeolog:
-Pemujaan terhadap pohon dalam tradisi India kuno adalah hal yang umum, kemungkinan besar ini salah satunya.
-Asoka membangun kuil di atas situs tersebut sebagai peringatan terhadap Maya Devi.
> Kesimpulan: tidak dapat disimpulkan apapun, perlu tambahan data lebih untuk menyimpulkan sesuatu. 


Informasi yang dibangun Cocolog:
-Karena range tahun adalah 800 BC - 550 BC, maka Long Chronology yang menuliskan 623 SM sangat cocokable.
-Asoka tidak mungkin keliru menentukan tempat pembangunan kuil, maka pasti altar itu adalah altar Buddhis.
> Kesimpulan: Ditemukan altar berumur 6 BC yang berarti tahun Buddhis berdasarkan Dipavamsa adalah benar. Namo Buddhaya, kitab Buddhis memang benar adanya.

Dengan prosedur cocologi ini, jika di bawah situs Isipatana ditemukan kuburan Homo Erectus, bisa juga disimpulkan pemutaran roda pertama terjadi sekitar 1 juta tahun SM.


---
Matthew Kapstein, Directeur d’études at Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes & Numata Visiting Professor of Buddhist Studies at the University of Chicago:
"[...] It is not at all clear to me why the discovery of a sixth century BCE structure at Lumbini thought to be a “shrine” warrants the assumption that it is a Buddhist shrine."


Jonathan A. Silk, Professor of Buddhist Studies at the Leiden University Institute for Area Studies:
"[...] And in fact, except for a single–I would say incautious–sentence, the article basically says this. I’m sure it will be spun for all it’s worth, but there’s nothing there, except perhaps (and even this is not 100% clear) some evidence that, despite an earlier botched excavation by a Japanese team (which, the authors imply, threw away valuable evidence), the traditional spot rebuilt by Asoka had earlier a wooden structure upon it. What that structure may have been, and whether it could conceivably have had any connection with the Buddha–no evidence at all!"


Richard Gombrich, Founder-President of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies:
"Rubbish!"