Bahiya sutta Ud. 1.10 historical controversy

[sujato]

Yes, these are good points. I have done some research into the spread of Buddhism southwards, but I haven’t considered this in detail, but I will!

Check out my thoughts here:

Was the Suttanipāta compiled in the south?

Normally we assume that the EBT collections were compiled in the central regions of the Middle Country, around Rajagaha, etc. But the Suttanipāta is somewhat unusual, in that it has no counterpart in the northern collections. Certain portions of it are found, but as independent texts, and there seems to be no equivalent to the text as a whole. One of the most striking portions of the text is the Vatthugatha of the final chapter, which is set in Assaka, which is further south than anywhere else …

A couple of references:

• In Ja 463 we have a Prince Supparaka. The name is treated as simply a personal name, but he was located at Bharukaccha, i.e. Bharuch, which is not far from Soparaka, and he was renowned as a seafarer.
  • Soparaka was evidently the capital of Sunāparanta = Aparanta.
  • Bharukaccha is mentioned once in the Vinaya: pli-tv-bu-vb-pj1:10.22.1
• In Md 7 we find a rather extraordinary list of place names, including several that I had thought were only in post-canonical literature: Suvaṇṇabhūmi (Myanmar), Suvaṇṇakūṭa (Malaysia), Tambapāṇi (Sri Lanka). I’ll have to look more closely at this.

@Mrunal

why bahiya have same concept of spirituality and libration which were dominant in Northn part of india

Indeed, it would seem this is comparable with the Vatthugatha of the Suttanipata, where a brahmin travels from Savatthi to the south, more or less inland from Suparaka.

@Mrunal

i think bahiya was traveler

The name means “foreigner”, and it is clearly an epithet. But it is not unusual to refer to people by their place of origin. His full name means “the foreigner who wears a bark cloth”.