Historical events in the suttas

I recollect that @sujato refers somewhere to the latest attested event in the sutta pitaka being a reference to a king? in AN??

Can someone clarify?

Are there other suttas that clearly refer to events after the lifetime of the buddha? or other historical events of note within that lifetime?

Obviously DN16 refers to the buddhas death, does it also refer to other historical events of the period?

Are there other examples of “prophecies” that came true (i.e are most likely texts form after the historical event “prophesied”)?

I would like to start a list, any assistance very much appreciated, including references worth checking and threads worth revisiting.

Metta.

This is AN5.50, King Munda. Apparently he is the great grandson of Ajatasattu. There are also a couple of suttas that mention Ananda staying at Kosambi, people visit him when they have questions. These also seem to be after the life of the Buddha (ie. SN22.90 / AN9.42 etc.)

1 Like

By Alexander Wynne:

It is possible that much of what is found in the Suttapiṭaka is earlier than c.250 B.C., perhaps even more than 100 years older than this. If some of the material is so old, it might be possible to establish what texts go back to the very beginning of Buddhism, texts which perhaps include the substance of the Buddha’s teaching, and in some cases, maybe even his words, but I will at least attempt to show that some of the details of the Buddha’s biography, namely those which record some of his activities as a Bodhisatta, have recorded accurate historical information about events that happened in the fifth century B.C. This will show that a careful use of textual sources is the only way to know anything about Buddhism in the pre-Aśokan period, and will lead to the conclusions that some material in the Suttapiṭaka is historically accurate and extremely old.

Various Suttas describe the Buddha’s visits to the sages Aḷara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta, although the source for the account is probably the Ariyapariyesana Sutta (MN26). Andre Bareau has translated a Chinese Sutra that corresponds to the APS as well as an account found in the Chinese version of the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya. There are also versions of the narrative in the Mahasaṅghika Mahavastu and the Mulasarvastivadin Saṅghabhedavastu. It seems that the account of the training under the two teachers was embedded in the pre-sectarian Buddhist tradition, that is, if one accepts the idea that corresponding parts of the sectarian literature are likely to be pre-sectarian. There is also material on the two teachers scattered throughout the Suttapiṭaka. Scholars have generally accepted Bareau’s opinion that the tradition of the two teachers’ instruction to the Bodhisatta was a fabrication, but more recently, Zafiropulo has shown that Bareau’s arguments are fallacious. If we are to take the tradition seriously, as we must do in the light of Zafiropulo’s comments, we must also take into consideration the fragmentary information about the two teachers that is scattered throughout the Suttapiṭaka. I hope to show that a re-evaluation of the data on the two teachers makes two things quite clear. Firstly, some of the information on the two teachers cannot have been shared at a later date – it must reflect a presectarian tradition. And secondly, a peculiar detail in the account of the Bodhisatta’s training under the teachers shows that the two men must have existed. They must have been teachers of some repute in the fifth century B.C. in northern India, teachers of meditation who probably taught the Bodhisatta.

To show the former point, I will consider the information found in various sources concerning the location of Uddaka Ramaputta. Hsṃan tsang mentions some legendary evidence that relates Udraka Ramaputta to Rajagṛha; it seems that this represents the local tradition of the Buddhists living in the area of Rajagṛha. This tradition is confirmed by the account of the Bodhisatta’s training in the Mahavastu, which also places Udraka Ramaputra in Rajagṛha. The coincidence between these two sources might have been reached in the sectarian period. There is, however, similar evidence in the Suttapiṭaka which makes it almost certain that the tradition must be presectarian. In the Vassakara Sutta, the Brahmin Vassakara, chief minister of Magadha, is said to visit the Buddha in Rajagaha and tell him that the raja Eḷeyya has faith in the samaṇa Ramaputta; the commentary names him as Uddaka Ramaputta. Vassakara also appears in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta as the chief minister of King Ajatasattu of Magadha. Vassakara’s connection with Rajagaha and Magadha suggest that the raja Eḷeyya was a local chieftain in Magadha, probably situated somewhere near to Rajagaha. If so, it is likely that Uddaka Ramaputta was situated in the vicinity of Rajagaha.

The coincidence of this different evidence from the Theravadin and Mahasaṅghika sources, as well as the information of Hsṃan tsang, is not to be overlooked. It is inconceivable that this correspondence was produced by a later leveling of texts, for it is entirely coincidental – different source materials, not corresponding Suttas, state or imply the same thing. It is hardly likely that a Mahasaṅghika monk or nun gained knowledge of obscure Pali Suttas, from which he deduced that Uddaka Ramaputta must have been based in Rajagaha, and after which he managed to insert this piece of information into the biographical account in the Mahavastu. And it is even more unlikely that a Theravadin Buddhist, in the early centuries A.D., studied the Mahasaṅghika Vinaya, from which he learnt that Udraka Ramaputra was based in Rajagṛha, following which he fabricated Suttas which contained circumstantial evidence which indirectly related Ramaputta to Rajagaha. Anyone who believes this version of textual history is living in cloud-cuckooland. It is clear that the information on the geographical situation of Uddaka Ramaputta must precede the Aśokan missions, and even the schism between Sthavira-s and Mahasaṅghika-s. This implies that the biographical tradition of the training under the two teachers goes back to the very beginning of Buddhism. It surely means that accurate historical information has been preserved, and suggests that Uddaka Ramaputta was based in Rajagaha, no doubt as a famous sage of Magadha. Incidentally, it is clear that this material has no normative value whatsoever, and so rebuts Schopen’s claim that ‘even the most artless formal narrative text’ has a normative agenda.

Another detail, found in almost all the sectarian accounts of the training under the two teachers, can hardly have been produced by a later leveling of the Buddhist literature; it occurs in the account of the training under Uddaka Ramaputta. This account is identical in almost all regards to the description of the training under Aḷara Kalama. It tells us that the Bodhisatta first of all mastered the teaching, i.e. he gained an intellectual understanding of it, after which he attained the direct realisation of the sphere of ‘neither perception nor non-perception’ through understanding (abhiṭṭa). But the account of the training under Uddaka Ramaputta makes it clear that it was not Uddaka Ramaputta who had attained the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception, but Rama, the father or spiritual teacher of Uddaka. This is seen in the following exchange. The Bodhisatta is said to have contemplated that Rama (not Ramaputta) did not proclaim (pavedesi) his attainment through mere faith, but because he dwelt (vihasi) knowing and seeing himself. The corresponding passage in the account of the training under Aḷara uses the same verbs in the present tense (pavedeti, viharati), indicating that Aḷara was living and Rama was dead, and that Ramaputta had not attained and realised the dhamma he taught.

The same phenomenon is found in the rest of the passage. Thus the Bodhisatta is said to have asked Ramaputta: ‘The venerable Rama proclaimed (pavedesi) [his attainment], having himself realised this dhamma to what extent (kittavata)?’ The reply, of course, is as far as nevasaṭṭanasaṭṭayatana. The Bodhisatta is then said to have contemplated that not only did Rama have faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration and insight, but that he too possesses these virtues. And at the end of the episode, Uddaka Ramaputta is reported to have said: ‘Thus the dhamma that Rama knew (aṭṭasi), that dhamma you [the Bodhisatta] know; the dhamma you know, that dhamma Rama knew.’ This is different from the corresponding speech that Aḷara is reported to have made to the Bodhisatta: ‘Thus the dhamma I know (janami), that dhamma you know; the dhamma you know, that I know.’ And whereas Aḷara is willing to establish the Bodhisatta as an equal to him (samasamaṃ), so that they can lead the ascetic group together (imaṃ gaṇaṃ pariharama ti), Uddaka acknowledges that the Bodhisatta is equal to Rama, not himself (iti yadiso ramo ahosi tadiso tuvaṃ), and asks the Buddha to lead the community alone (imaṃ gaṇaṃ parihara ti).

The distinction between Uddaka Ramaputta and Rama is also found in the Sarvastivadin, Dharmaguptaka, and Mahasaṅghika accounts of the Bodhisattva’s training. Although the Saṅghabhedavastu (plus parallel Tibetan translations) and the Lalitavistara fail to distinguish Ramaputta from Rama, this must be because of a later obfuscation of the tradition. Exactly the same mistake has been made by I. B. Horner, the PTS translator of the Majjhima Nikaya, who has been duped, by the repetitive oral style, into believing that the accounts of the training under Aḷara and Uddaka must be the same apart from the difference between the names of the two men and their meditative attainments.

It hardly needs to be pointed out that there is no need to trouble over these details in an oral tradition where adjacent passages are often composed in exactly the same way, one passage frequently being a verbatim repetition of the previous one with a minor change of one or two words. The tendency for reciters of this autobiographical episode would have been to make the two accounts identical bar the substitution of Uddaka’s name for Aḷara’s. A conscious effort has been made to distinguish Uddaka Ramaputta from Rama, and not to let the repetitive oral style interfere with this. This effort must surely go back to the beginning of the pre-sectarian tradition of composing biographical Suttas, and the distinction can only be explained if Rama and Ramaputta were two different people. Otherwise, it is part of an elaborate hoax, and there is no reason for such a hoax.

Bareau maintained that the correspondence between the two descriptions of the training under each of the teachers proved their artificial (i.e. unhistorical) nature. But repetition is normal in Pali oral literature. And it seems that the two parallel accounts, having preserved the important distinction between Ramaputta and Rama, rather than leaving an impression of ‘contrivance’, have preserved valuable historical information. The conclusion is that the three men were real. It is hardly likely that Buddhists got together a few hundred years after the Buddha’s death and decided to make up the idea that Rama and not Ramaputta had attained the state of neither perception nor non- perception, and then had such an influence that the idea found its way into recensions of texts being made in regions as far apart as central Asia and Sri Lanka. The idea must have been in the Buddhist tradition from the beginning, and can only be explained as an attempt to remember an historical fact. There is no other sensible explanation. It is also worth pointing out that if this biographical material is so old and really does represent an attempt to record historical facts, then it means that this portion of the Bodhisatta’s biography is most likely to be true. It is likely that the Bodhisatta really was taught by Aḷara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta.

1 Like

Thanks for those! Im pretty sure i remember some suttas starting with a phrase like “not long after the buddhas death”, does anyone knownthem?

1 Like

There’s at least MN 108 and DN 10.

1 Like

Fantastic! Yes those where the ones i think i was thinking of!!

So DN16 we have the buddhas death
DN10 and MN108 “not long” after
AN5.50 2? Generations later (ajatasattu - munda)

And a few indeterminates that “seem” post buddha in SN22.90 and AN9.42

I would probably throw in DN23 as one that “feels” like it is post buddha.

Any more? This is really helpful!

And i suppose we can add SN47.14 for the passing of sariputta and mogolanna but before the passing of the buddha.

MN84 as well, the King Avantiputta wants to take refuge in the Buddha and Mahakaccana mentions the Buddha is already full extinguished.

As far as historical events go I think DN16 has quite a few things going on. A conflict between the Kingdoms is developing. Pataliputra is being fortified, which is about to become the next great capital. The spreading out of the Buddha relics is also a major historical event.

1 Like

Excellent! Thanks!!

So:

SN47.14 Sariputta and Moggollana are passed
DN16 The Buddha passes
DN10 MN84 MN108 all mention that the Buddha has passed
SN22.90 AN9.42 and DN23 all “appear” to take place in a world post Buddha
and
AN5.50 takes place several generations after the Buddha has passed.

Any more anyone? especially ones taking place what appears to be a length of time after the buddha.

:slight_smile:

1 Like

This one came to mind as well: AN8.8

From the blurb:

In a discourse evidently set some time after the Buddha’s passing, Venerable Uttara, staying in a distant land, teaches that a mendicant should review their own failings and those of others. Questioned by Sakka, the Lord of Gods, Uttara affirms that he learned this from the Buddha.

Interesting essay by Bhante about this sutta: On AN 8.8 Uttaravipatti

1 Like

MN52 is about happenings in the city of Pāṭaliputra (evidently after the Buddha’s demise as the city probably didnt exist in the Buddha’s time) where a householder named Dasama meets an unnamed bhikṣu and upon asking the bhikṣu of the whereabouts of Ānanda, is told Ānanda was staying in a village adjoining the city of Vaiśālī.

MN94 is also similar, it appears that a monk named Udayana asks a brahmin named Ghoṭamukha to build a new upasthānaśālā (residence or assembly hall) for members of the sangha at Pāṭaliputra.

SN45.18 is similar, it appears to be from a time when Ānanda and a monk named Bhadra were staying at Pāṭaliputra.

SN47.21 is also similar, again from the time when Ānanda and a monk named Bhadra were staying at Pāṭaliputra, and Bhadra asks Ānanda to explain something the Buddha had said earlier.

SN47.23 likewise again from the time when Ānanda and a monk named Bhadra were staying at Pāṭaliputra after the Buddha’s time.

AN11.16 (looks identical to MN52 mentioned above except various textual deletions and additions in the MN. the AN version seems to be the earlier acccount against which I’ve compared the MN version below).

Expand this to view the Comparison of AN11.16 vs MN52 (additions in green and deletions in red in MN)

Eva me sutaekaṁ samayaṁ āyasmā ānando vesāliyaṁ viharati beluvagāmake.

Tena kho pana samayena dasamo gahapati aṭṭhakanāgaro pāṭaliputtaṁ anuppatto hoti kenacideva karaṇīyena. Atha kho dasamo gahapati aṭṭhakanāgaro yena kukkuṭārāmo yena aññataro bhikkhu tenupasaṅkami; upasaṅkamitvā taṁ bhikkhuṁ abhivādetvā ekamanta nisīdi. Ekamanta nisinno kho dasamo gahapati aṭṭhakanāgaro ta bhikkhu etadavoca: “kahaṁ nu kho, bhante, āyasmā ānando etarahi viharati? Dassanakāmā hi mayaṁ, bhante, ta āyasmantaṁ ānandan”ti.

“Eso, gahapati, āyasmā ānando vesāliyaṁ viharati beluvagāmake”ti.

Atha kho dasamo gahapati aṭṭhakanāgaro pāṭaliputte taṁ karaṇīyaṁ tīretvā yena vesālī yena beluvagāmako yenāyasmā ānando tenupasaṅkami; upasaṅkamitvā āyasmantaṁ ānandaṁ abhivādetvā ekamantaṁ nisīdi. Ekamantaṁ nisinno kho dasamo gahapati aṭṭhakanāgaro āyasmantaṁ ānandaṁ etadavoca:

“atthi nu kho, bhante ānanda, tena bhagavatā jānatā passatā arahatā sammāsambuddhena ekadhammo sammadakkhāto, yattha bhikkhuno appamattassa ātāpino pahitattassa viharato avimuttaavimuttañceva cittaṁ vimuccati, aparikkhīṇā ca āsavā parikkhayaṁ gacchanti, ananuppattaananuppattañca anuttaraṁ yogakkhemaṁ anupāpuṇātī”ti?

“Atthi kho, gahapati, tena bhagavatā jānatā passatā arahatā sammāsambuddhena ekadhammo sammadakkhāto, yattha bhikkhuno appamattassa ātāpino pahitattassa viharato avimuttaavimuttañceva cittaṁ vimuccati, aparikkhīṇā ca āsavā parikkhayaṁ gacchanti, ananuppattaananuppattañca anuttaraṁ yogakkhemaṁ anupāpuṇātī”ti.

“Katamo pana, bhante ānanda, tena bhagavatā jānatā passatā arahatā sammāsambuddhena ekadhammo sammadakkhāto, yattha bhikkhuno appamattassa ātāpino pahitattassa viharato avimuttaavimuttañceva cittaṁ vimuccati, aparikkhīṇā ca āsavā parikkhayaṁ gacchanti, ananuppattaananuppattañca anuttaraṁ yogakkhemaṁ anupāpuṇātī”ti?

“Idha, gahapati, bhikkhu vivicceva kāmehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakkaṁ savicāraṁ vivekajaṁ pītisukhaṁ paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ upasampajja viharati. So iti paṭisañcikkhati: ‘idampi kho paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ abhisaṅkhataṁ abhisañcetayitaṁ. Yaṁ kho pana kiñci abhisaṅkhataṁ abhisañcetayitaṁ, tadaniccaṁ nirodhadhamman’ti pajānāti. So tattha ṭhito āsavānaṁ khayaṁ pāpuṇāti;. No ce āsavānaṁ khayaṁ pāpuṇāti, teneva dhammarāgena tāya dhammanandiyā pañcannaṁ orambhāgiyānaṁ saṁyojanānaṁ parikkhayā opapātiko hoti tattha parinibbāyī anāvattidhammo tasmā lokā. Ayampi kho, gahapati, tena bhagavatā jānatā passatā arahatā sammāsambuddhena ekadhammo sammadakkhāto, yattha bhikkhuno appamattassa ātāpino pahitattassa viharato avimuttaavimuttañceva cittaṁ vimuccati, aparikkhīṇā ca āsavā parikkhayaṁ gacchanti, ananuppattaananuppattañca anuttaraṁ yogakkhemaṁ anupāpuṇāti.

Puna caparaṁ, gahapati, bhikkhu vitakkavicārānaṁ vūpasamā ajjhattaṁ sampasādanaṁ cetaso ekodibhāva avitakka avicāra samādhija pītisukha dutiya jhāna …pe… tatiya jhāna…pe… dutiya jhāna upasampajja viharati. So iti paisañcikkhati: ‘idampi kho dutiya jhāna abhisakhata abhisañcetayita …pe… anuttara yogakkhema anupāpuāti. Puna capara, gahapati, bhikkhu pītiyā ca virāgā …pe… tatiya jhāna upasampajja viharati. So iti paisañcikkhati: ‘idampi kho tatiya jhāna abhisakhata abhisañcetayita …pe… anuttara yogakkhema anupāpuāti. Puna capara, gahapati, bhikkhu sukhassa ca pahānā …pe… catutthaṁ jhānaṁ upasampajja viharati. So iti paṭisañcikkhati: ‘idampi kho catutthaṁ jhānaṁ abhisaṅkhataṁ abhisañcetayita’. ‘abhisañcetayita …pe…Ya kho pana kiñci abhisakhata abhisañcetayita tadanicca nirodhadhamman’ti pajānāti. So tattha hito āsavāna khaya pāpuāti; no ce āsavāna khaya pāpuāti, teneva dhammarāgena tāya dhammanandiyā pañcanna orambhāgiyāna sayojanāna parikkhayā opapātiko hoti tattha parinibbāyī anāvattidhammo tasmā lokā. Ayampi kho, gahapati, tena bhagavatā jānatā passatā arahatā sammāsambuddhena ekadhammo sammadakkhāto, yattha bhikkhuno appamattassa ātāpino pahitattassa viharato avimutta vā citta vimuccati aparikkhīā vā āsavā parikkhaya gacchanti, ananuppatta anuttaraṁ yogakkhemaṁ anupāpuṇāti.

Puna caparaṁ, gahapati, bhikkhu mettāsahagatena cetasā ekaṁ disaṁ pharitvā viharati, tathā dutiyaṁ, tathā tatiyaṁ, tathā catutthaṁ. Iti uddhamadho tiriyaṁ sabbadhi sabbattatāya sabbāvantaṁ lokaṁ mettāsahagatena cetasā eka disa pharitvā viharati vipulena mahaggatena appamāṇena averena abyāpbajjhena pharitvā viharati. So iti paṭisañcikkhati: ‘ayampi kho mettā cetovimuttimettācetovimutti abhisaṅkhatā abhisañcetayitā. Yaṁ kho pana kiñci abhisaṅkhataṁ abhisañcetayitaṁ tadaniccaṁ nirodhadhamman’ti pajānāti. So tattha ṭhito āsavāna khaya pāpuāti; no ce āsavāna khaya pāpuāti, teneva dhammarāgena tāya dhammanandiyā pañcanna orambhāgiyāna sayojanāna parikkhayā opapātiko hoti tattha parinibbāyī anāvattidhammo tasmā lokā. Ayampi kho, gahapati, tena bhagavatā jānatā …pe… ananuppatta anuttaraṁ yogakkhemaṁ anupāpuṇāti.

Puna caparaṁ, gahapati, bhikkhu karuṇāsahagatena cetasā …pe… muditāsahagatena cetasā …pe… upekkhāsahagatena cetasā ekaṁ disaṁ pharitvā viharati, tathā dutiyaṁ, tathā tatiyaṁ, tathā catutthaṁ. Iti uddhamadho tiriyaṁ sabbadhi sabbattatāya sabbāvantaṁ lokaṁ upekkhāsahagatena cetasā vipulena mahaggatena appamāṇena averena abyāpbajjhena pharitvā viharati. So iti paṭisañcikkhati: ‘ayampi kho upekkhācetovimutti abhisaṅkhatā abhisañcetayitā. Yaṁ kho pana kiñci abhisaṅkhataṁ abhisañcetayitaṁ tadaniccaṁ nirodhadhamman’ti pajānāti. So tattha ṭhito āsavāna khaya pāpuāti; no ce āsavāna khaya pāpuāti, teneva dhammarāgena tāya dhammanandiyā pañcanna orambhāgiyāna sayojanāna parikkhayā opapātiko hoti tattha parinibbāyī anāvattidhammo tasmā lokā. Ayampi kho, gahapati, tena bhagavatā jānatā …pe… ananuppatta anuttaraṁ yogakkhemaṁ anupāpuṇāti.

Puna caparaṁ, gahapati, bhikkhu sabbaso rūpasaññānaṁ samatikkamā paṭighasaññānaṁ atthaṅgamā nānattasaññānaṁ amanasikārā ‘ananto ākāso’ti ākāsānañcāyatanaṁ upasampajja viharati. So iti paṭisañcikkhati: ‘ayampi kho ākāsānañcāyatanasamāpatti abhisaṅkhatā abhisañcetayitā. Yaṁ kho pana kiñci abhisaṅkhataṁ abhisañcetayitaṁ tadaniccaṁ nirodhadhamman’ti pajānāti. So tattha ṭhito āsavāna khaya pāpuāti; no ce āsavāna khaya pāpuāti, teneva dhammarāgena tāya dhammanandiyā pañcanna orambhāgiyāna sayojanāna parikkhayā opapātiko hoti tattha parinibbāyī anāvattidhammo tasmā lokā. Ayampi kho, gahapati, tena bhagavatā jānatā …pe… ananuppatta anuttaraṁ yogakkhemaṁ anupāpuṇāti.

Puna caparaṁ, gahapati, bhikkhu sabbaso ākāsānañcāyatanaṁ samatikkamma ‘anantaṁ viññāṇan’ti viññāṇañcāyatanaṁ upasampajja viharati. So iti paisañcikkhati: ‘ayampi kho viññāañcāyatanasamāpatti abhisakhatā abhisañcetayitā. Ya kho pana kiñci abhisakhata abhisañcetayita tadanicca nirodhadhamman’ti pajānāti. …pe…So tattha hito …pe… anuttara yogakkhema anupāpuāti.

Puna capara, gahapati, bhikkhu sabbaso viññāṇañcāyatanaṁ samatikkamma ‘natthi kiñcī’ti ākiñcaññāyatanaṁ upasampajja viharati. So iti paṭisañcikkhati: ‘ayampi kho ākiñcaññāyatanasamāpatti abhisaṅkhatā abhisañcetayitā. Yaṁ kho pana kiñci abhisaṅkhataṁ abhisañcetayitaṁ tadaniccaṁ nirodhadhamman’ti pajānāti. So tattha ṭhito āsavānaṁ khayaṁ pāpuṇāti;. No ce āsavānaṁ khayaṁ pāpuṇāti, teneva dhammarāgena tāya dhammanandiyā pañcannaṁ orambhāgiyānaṁ saṁyojanānaṁ parikkhayā opapātiko hoti tattha parinibbāyī anāvattidhammo tasmā lokā. Ayampi kho, gahapati, tena bhagavatā jānatā …pe… ananuppattapassatā arahatā sammāsambuddhena ekadhammo akkhāto yattha bhikkhuno appamattassa ātāpino pahitattassa viharato avimuttañceva citta vimuccati, aparikkhīā ca āsavā parikkhaya gacchanti, ananuppattañca anuttaraṁ yogakkhemaṁ anupāpuṇātī”ti.

Evaṁ vutte, dasamo gahapati aṭṭhakanāgaro āyasmantaṁ ānandaṁ etadavoca: “seyyathāpi, bhante ānanda, puriso ekaṁva nidhimukhaṁ gavesanto sakideva ekādasa nidhimukhāni adhigaccheyya; evameva kho ahaṁ, bhante, ekaṁ amatadvāraṁ gavesanto sakideva ekādasa amatadvārāni alatthaṁ sebhāvanāya. Seyyathāpi, bhante, purisassa agāraṁ ekādasa dvāra.ekādasadvāra, so tasmiṁ agāre āditte ekamekenapi dvārena sakkuṇeyya attānaṁ sotthiṁ kātuṁ; evameva kho ahaṁ, bhante, imesaṁ ekādasannaṁ amatadvārānaṁ ekamekenapi amatadvārena sakkuṇissāmi attānaṁ sotthiṁ kātuṁ. Ime hiImehi nāma, bhante, aññatitthiyā ācariyassa ācariyadhanaṁ pariyesissanti. Ki, kimaga panāhaṁ āyasmato ānandassa pūjaṁ na karissāmī”ti.

Atha kho dasamo gahapati aṭṭhakanāgaro vesālikañca pāṭaliputtakañca vesālikañca bhikkhusaṅghaṁ sannipātāpetvā paṇītena khādanīyena bhojanīyena sahatthā santappesi sampavāresi., ekamekañca bhikkhuṁ paccekaṁ dussayugena acchādesi, āyasmantañca ānandaṁ ticīvarena. acchādesi, āyasmato ca ānandassa pañcasata vihārapañcasatavihāra kārāpesīti.

2 Likes

Oh wow @srkris this is fantastic! thank you so much!! I will now have to find an opportunity to dig in to this wonderful material.

Are there other locations or persons thought to post date the buddha that could be searched?

If anyone has any further ideas I would love to hear them!

Ud 8.6 Pāṭaligāmiya sutta includes the Buddha’s prophecy that the village of Pāṭali would become the city Pāṭaliputta:

“Ānanda, who is building a citadel at Pāṭali Village. Sir, the Magadhan ministers Sunidha and Vassakāra are building a citadel to keep the Vajjis out.”

As far as the civilized region extends, as far as the trading zone extends, this will be the chief city: the Pāṭaliputta trade center. But Pāṭaliputta will face three threats: — from fire, flood, and dissension.”

In DN 16: “Now at that time King Ajātasattu Vedehiputta of Māgadha wanted to invade the Vajjis.”

Then King Ajātasattu sent Vassakāra the brahmin minister of Māgadha to notify the Buddha:

‘I shall wipe out these Vajjis, so mighty and powerful! I shall destroy them, and lay ruin and devastation upon them!’

Thag 3.6 Khujjasobhitattheragāthā and Thig 15.1 Isidāsītherīgāthā are set in Pāṭaliputta as well.

metta

1 Like