National Geographic, Bones of the Buddha; Duarte Elks Lodge, Ven. Dr. Karunananda, Sunil Jayasinghe; Dr. Ranajit Pal (ranajitpal.com); Dhr. Seven, A. Larson (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly
 |
| Kapilavastu was a seasonal capital city, not a country, where Prince Siddhartha lived. |
PUBLIC INTELLECTUAL DEBATE OVER THE TRUE LOCATION OF ANCIENT CITY OF KAPILAVASTU
 |
| Afghanistan is the Buddha's country. |
The public is invited to an intellectual debate over the true location of the Ancient Kapilavastu where the historical Buddha lived for the first 29 years of his life. Debaters: Theravada Buddhist monk Ven. Dr. Karunananda, Abbot of Bodhi Mission of Long Beach, with a doctoral degree in archeology from India (who maintains it is Piprahwa, as this video illustrates relic remains were recovered), and architect Dr. Sunil Jayasinghe (a dullard who maintains that Prince Siddhartha must have been raised in the "country" of modern Tilaurakot, Nepal, when it was Kapilavastu although Kapilavastu was but one of three seasonal capital cities of "Shakya Land"/Scythia in what maverick Indian historian Dr. Ranajit Pal locates in modern Afghanistan and such sites as Bamiyan [and we would add Mes Aynak and Kabul/Kabil]). Public welcome. FREE.
- Elks Lodge, 2436 Huntington Dr., Duarte
- Saturday, August 4, 2018, 3:00-5:00 pm
- Refreshments served at 2:30 pm
- Info: Sunil Jayasinghe (626) 353-2841
1 comment:
Which is the Home of the Buddha—Tilaurakot or Piprahwa?
by Deepak Shimkhada
Two weeks ago, I was invited to a public debate between two Buddhist scholars—one Sri Lankan, the other Indian. The subject of the debate was Kapilavastu, the home of Siddhartha Gautama, better known as Buddha.
With the discovery of Buddha’s relic at Priprahwa, India, Indian archaeologists, led by the Superintending Archaeologist K.M. Srivastava, are pushing to establish the location of Kapilavastu at Piprahwa, a district in India. While Indian historians and archaeologists cannot change the location of Lumbini, where Siddhartha was born, establishing the kingdom of Kapilavastu in Piprahwa offers an advantage for India to claim Buddha as her son.
This is what is at stake, according to Dr. Sunil Jayasinghe.
On the other hand, Dr. Karunananda, an Indian venerable monk, tried to prove that Piprahwa was indeed the kingdom of Suddhodhana.
Without attaching any bias toward the speakers, I tried to listen to the arguments presented by the two scholars as objectively as possible. After all, this is what a true scholar should do in a situation like this. By the end, Dr. Jayasinghe presented overwhelming archaeological and textual evidence that swayed me to believe him. The venerable monk was more emotional than factual, and facts count more than emotion in a debate, although in present-day America, it's not the case. Sadly, it's the day of distortion, omission or just negation of facts.
In support of his argument, Dr. Jayasinghe offered not only physical evidence like the topography of the land, palaces, ponds, rivers but also the accounts left by two Chinese travelers, Fa Hien and Hiuen Tsang. He also drew on the accounts of Pali texts that described two rivers that flowed through Kapilavastu [present-day Tilaurakot], the distance between them, and three palaces that King Suddhodhana built for his son, Siddhartha. Since there are no physical traces of the rivers, ponds, and palaces described in the Pali texts in Piprahwa, but they are still in the ruins of Tilaurakot, Dr. Jayasinghe concluded that Piprahwa couldn’t be Kapilavastu.
I read the reports prepared by Mr. K.M. Srivastava, the Superintending Archaeologist of Archaeological Survey of India, and the excavation he initiated at Piprahwa seems to have been colored by a nationalistic agenda. His reports can be read here:
https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.63816.
In 1986, Professor John Huntington published an article on the subject of Kapilavastu. The inscription written on the relic casket discovered from the archaeological site at Piprahwa in 1898 by W.C. Peppe states,“This libation offering containing relic of the Shakya Lord Buddha given by the Sukiti brothers, sisters, sons and wives.”
Prof. Huntington in his article says, “The inscription is in Maurya period characters, which are virtually identical in type of those of the famous Mauryan epigraphs on the pillars and rock edicts, and there can be no doubt that the inscription from that era. The inscription does not say that these relics belong to the Shakya clan, nor does it state that the Sukiti family […..] belongs to the Shakyas as some others have argued. Thus, in spite of early opinions to the contrary, it does not identify the site of Piprahwa as relating to the Shakyas; however, it does identify the relics as belonging to those of the Shakyamuni Buddha.” Please read his article here:
https://web.archive.org/…/downloads/jchArticles/Part%205.pdf
Now, you be the judge.
--------------------------
Deepak Shimkhada, Ph.D.
Adjunct Professor, Claremont School of Theology
Adjunct Professor, Chaffey College
President, Indic Foundation (www.indic.org)
Board Member, South Asian Studies Association (www.sasia.org)
Email: dshimkhada@gmail.com
Twitter: @dshimkhada
www.dshimkhada.org
www.dshimkhada.com
(Home) 909-621-0783
(Mobile) 909-237-2667
Post a Comment