In the absence of evidence, sometimes scholarly instincts can be beneficial!
with metta,
3 Likes
Bhante,
All this is unsourced, but I read somewhere that Ananda became a bhikkhu just a year or two after the Buddha’s awakening, and became his attendant twenty or so years later. As such, one would imagine Ananda being 20 years younger than the Buddha. I think I recall a sutta mentioning Ananda’s gray hair, possibly set before the Buddha’s parinibbana—which would make his being 40 years younger unlikely.
Apologies again for the lack of sources, I trust yourself or others to know more and develop on these potential points.
Happy and fruitful new year to all!
1 Like
The tradition says they were the same age, but there are multiple indications that he was substantially younger, probably a generation or so. Most likely he’s somewhere between 20 and 40 years younger than the Buddha. On the whole, it’s true, somewhere less than 40 may be more likely.
3 Likes
If the Buddha met King Bimbisara (death -491) and was the same age (MN 89) as King Pasedani (-5xx) and met King Ajatasattu (-491 -459) then his awakening must have been before -491 (death of King Bimbisara) which means his birth must have been before -526 and his death before -486. So the -563 to -483 seems correct to me.`
1 Like
But none of those dates have any independent support.
The first dates we have external evidence for are Ashoka’s, and the absolute chronology is estimated from the span of time between him and the Buddha and his contemporaries. The various histories span the gap between the Buddha and Ashoka by giving lists of kings or Dhamma leaders. And it is from these that the estimates are made. Thus the chronologies differ, depending on the assumptions they make and the way the evidence is considered.
5 Likes
Would these links be of any help?
“Oldest Buddhist Shrine Uncovered In Nepal May Push Back Buddha’s Birth Date”
With mettā
1 Like
4 Likes
Is there a publication that discusses in detail a chronologia via the kings, the probability of their accurateness etc? I find the dating discussion which solely focuses on the Asoka coronation not convincing.
Hi I believe Richard Gombrich has published a paper where he feels he has pinpointed the year the Buddha died?
I haven’t been able to access the paper.
Would you know the title?
It’s possibly this, but I had thought it more recent:
Gombrich, Richard F. 1992. ‘Dating the Historical Buddha: A Red Herring Revealed.’ In The Dating of the Historical Buddha Part 2, ed. Bechert, Heinz, pp. 237–59.
or this:
Discovering the Buddha’s Date. Buddhism for the New Millennium, ed. Lakshmi S. Perera. London: World Buddhist Foundation, 2000
See here for a bit of a critique of Gombrich putting the Buddha’s death at 404 BCE:
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cooking+the+Buddhist+books%3A+the+implications+of+the+new+dating+of+the…-a0179391399
"I find Gombrich’s argument for the Buddha’s death in 404 B.C.E. quite compelling because he is able to chart the life span of the Vinayadharas in a fashion that seems not to contradict other well known dates … right up through Asoka’s coronation and thereafter. "
The possible dates for the Buddha’s lifetime are: (1) c. 566–486, (2) c. 464–384, and (3) c. 508–428.
But there is no sure basis for choosing among these three (p. 4 in Choong Mun-keat, 2004, “A Discussion on the Determination of the Date of the Historical Buddha”).
Does Choong take up and then reject Gombrich’s proposed dating, or does he ignore it?
Choong MK in the paper p. 1 only mentions:
"Contemporary scholars in Asia and the West have suggested various dates that differ from the traditional Sinhalese/Theravadin dates of 624-544 BCE; for example:
466–386 BCE (Ui Hakuju)
463–383 BCE (Nakamura Hajime)
448–368 BCE (Heinz Bechert)
500/460–420/380 BCE (André Bareau)
502/479–422/399 BCE (Richard Gombrich)"
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5664-2895
1 Like
Fancy calculations have been done around Asoka, counsils, vinaya transmittors. And yet, I feel that they are missing important points (that are admittedly not quantifiable).
Let’s take the short chronology which imples that Asoka’s coronation was 100 years after the Buddha’s passing. At the time of his coronation Asoka was apparently 36 years old. Which means that at his birth the Buddha’s passing was 64 years ago. Which means that somebody 60 years old would have grown up with stories about the Parinibbana, would have come across wondering monastics who were personally there, or who were familiar with someone who was personally there.
And accordingly the curious Asoka would have gathered people around him who had tales from their parents or grandparents, personal accounts, about Buddha, or Ananda, or Rahula. Do the Rock Edicts read like Asoka had access to personal accounts? No, the edicts reference texts, codified recitations, impersonal and rigid.
There are other reasons of internal consistency, too, which make it implausible for me to accept the short chronology, or anything close to it (like Gombrich’s reasoning).
Here’s a good article by Vinaya expert Charles Prebish about the different calculations around the Buddha’s dating
Charles S. Prebish - Cooking the Buddhist Books: The Implications of the New Dating of the Buddha for the History of Early Indian Buddhism (2008)
Yes, I shared this article in my post above.
“fancy calculations” sounds rather dismissive.
Sorry, I went on a search for Gombrich’s article, and ended up with the same Prebish paper without realizing that it’s the one you shared 
What I mean with fancy is that so much work has been put into these calculations. And I don’t understand why so many authors entirely rely on them without entertaining completely different factors as well.
Choong Mun-keat says there is no sure basis for choosing among these three possible dates (566–486, 464–384, and 508–428) for the Buddha’s lifetime. But he chooses 508–428 (see pp. 2, 5 in Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism).
It seems more textual editions give the coronation of Aśoka as 160 years after the death of the Buddha.
I can relate 
Today’s Koan. Or is it a Haiku? 
6 Likes