Notes on geography for Map of Early Buddhism

I’m not entirely sure if that is correct because both are also mentioned in the description of Cetiya. So either these are placed wrong or the borders of Cetiya are wrong. @Sujato, can you have a look please?

I’ve done all those in the backend and made a backup of the map. Thanks for your great work! :anjal:

1 Like

Yep, that’s why I’ve highlighted it - having read the reference the DPPN bases its conclusion that Bhaddavatikā & Ambatittha are in Cetiya (Pacittiya 51 Analysis) I lean a bit towards the view that the DPPN might be wrong and that the text implies the Buddha left Cetiya to head to Bhaddavatikā. However, I , likewise, am not entirely sure, so wanted to see if you think the markers should be moved, or the text should be amended.

I heartily agree with you, it is great work to do :grinning: - in the process I’ve come by some wholly awesome suttas I’m very grateful for.

Some more additions:

Goyogapilakkha
Gosiṅgasālavanadāya (near Nādikā)
Gosiṅgasālavanadāya (near Vesāli)
Naḷeru­puci­man­da / Naḷeru­puci­man­da­ / Nalerupucimaṇḍa
Papāte Pabbate / Papātapabbata
Pāvārikambavana (near Nāḷandā)
Mahāvana (near Kapilavatthu)
Mahāvana (near Uruvelakappa)
Uruvelakappa

Just one more lot and the list from above should be done.

2 Likes

Done those :slight_smile:
Looking forward to the rest.

1 Like

###The last lot added:

Rājāyatana
Pajjanika / Sajjanela
Sappasoṇḍikapabbhāra / Sappasoṇḍika
Sāmuga / Sāpūga
Sāmagāma
Sārandadacetiya
Silāvatī
Sītavana
Sumāgadhā / Sumāgavā
Senānigama / Senānīnigama

EDIT: oops, should have added @Vimala as per the above.

###A couple of question marks:

Suvidehā: I don’t quite know what implication of Bhante’s essay on the Suvidehans has on the plotting of Suvidehā. For my two pennies worth, it seems quite fine to think that MN34 is not referring to Videha, but going by paras. 2 & 4 of Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation I find it difficult not to conclude that there was some place immediately on the other side of the Ganges where the cowherds were leading (be it calamitously or with joyful success) their cows towards and that it was likely to have had a place name.

Noting Bhante’s point that “Suvideha is never identified as a political entity, the text simply uses the common idiom ‘among the Suvidehans’”, I remain intrigued by the detail that the sutta seems to be talking in very literal, geographically anchored, terms about moving cows from one specific/identifiable location to another.

Despite being completely out of my depth on the Pāli front, going by Bh. Bodhi’s translation and SC’s Lookup dictionary it appears as though in addition to not identifying any political entity on the northern shore, the sutta also doesn’t identify Magadha as the place from which the cows began their journeys, but instead talks of a Magadhan cowherd driving them. Nevertheless the assumption seems pretty safe. To me it feels around about as reasonable to assume Suvidehā was their destination.

I guess there’s just an insufficient evidence base to do anything with regards to the point?

**Thūṇa:** [Bimala Churn Law](http://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/Reference/Geography-of-Early-Buddhism/01-Middle-Country.htm) links Thūṇa with Sthānvīsvara, and [The Lives of Indian Images](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5OGFrDcLbogC&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=Sthanvisvara&source=bl&ots=cHG-LveUKi&sig=k93E1rahWLMdm18vvgvG0OgtDw4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjS7r2FjcfQAhXhC8AKHesiBxwQ6AEIQzAH#v=onepage&q=Sthanvisvara&f=false) gives Sthānvīsvara as modern day Taneshar. Taneshar falls in the north-western tip of SC map's Kuru approximation area so (assuming the map's territory approximations aren't grossly inaccurate) disagrees with the DPPN's idea that Thūṇa is in the Kosala country.

Thūṇa is given as the western marker for the ‘Middle country’ and maybe one detail that may support Taneshar’s candidacy is that the distances between Sāvatthī-Kajaṅgala (650km) and Sāvatthī-Taneshar (590km) are roughly speaking equal (Sāvatthī, being where the Buddha identifies the boundary and might thus be taken as the middle of the middle country in regard to the horizontal(ish) axis).

Worth adding?

###And finally

Filed as clutter not worth the bother

Kapinaccanā
Karerikuṭikā
Karerimaṇḍalamāḷa
Gotamadvāra
Codanāvatthu
Taṇḍulapālidvārāya / Taṇḍu­la­pālid­vāra / Tandulapāladvāra
Tindukakandarā
Tindukkhānu / Tindukkhānuparibbājakārāma
Paṇḍava
Paṭiyāloka / Patiyāloka
Pāvārikambavana (near Kosambī)
Mahāvana (near Vesāli)
Moranivāpa
Laṭṭhivana / Latthivana / Latthivanuyyāna
Salaḷāgāra / Salalaghara
Suppatiṭṭha Cetiya / Supatiṭṭhacetiya

Filed as unresolvable

Kuṇḍadhānavana / Kuṇḍiṭṭhāna / Kuṇḍikā / Kuṇḍiyā / Kuṇhāna
Bhaggā
Setakaṇṇika / Setakannika

And thus was the list concluded. Now the real fun can begin! :smiley:

4 Likes

Thanks so much! Excellent work, as always.

Re Suvideha, it is common for the region to be spoken of as “among the Magadhans” and so on. Often this does correspond with a recognized political entity, and of course it may do so in the case of the Suvidehans also. However, my main point was that this entry was not sufficient evidence to stretch Videha all the way to the Ganges.

Obviously the Suvidehans lived somewhere, and this can be plotted as a place, rather than a political entity, and without having to revise Videha.

As for Thuna, it sounds like a good case, please go ahead.

Agreed & agreed (I also was coming from a totally different start point - of trying to assess the merits of the case for adding ‘Suvidehā’ as an item on the list / DPPN entry.)

Thuna has been added!

:slight_smile:

Thanks @Aminah! I’ve done them all now. Great job!

Hey, maybe we should start making a new map with the spread of Buddhism over various centuries and all the temples and shrines and monasteries that were added since then … that will keep you busy for a while longer :slight_smile: (I’m just kidding!!!)

3 Likes

:cry: But I think I do feel a little bereft. A ‘spread of Buddhism map’ wouldn’t necessarily fix things for me though, I don’t so readily connect with the sutras found under the sea in the palaces of dragons. Still, it’s probably better than deleting the Early Buddhism map in order to start again. :smiling_imp: (Yes, it is another attack of my silliness ;))

3 Likes

Could we show a route, at least in his early years, the journey he made on foot?

1 Like

It is there. Go to the map. Then scroll down the menu on the left and you will see:

Mahaparinibbana journey and Parayanavagga journey. If you click on the checkboxes in front of these, the journeys will appear on the map.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1D8myPgBPxUNfBweFjHaybCT3o4U&usp=sharing

1 Like

Eerm, so the mind and digits can get up to all sorts of funny things when not diligently supervised. Recently mine have strayed in such a way as to produce this.

My main thought harked back to this chain of comments:

As uMap facilitates discrete links it is possible to give the modern reference number (displayed by either hovering over or, obviously, clicking on the link) while leaving the PTS references completely intact [muchos evil genius laughter :grin:]. uMap also answers a number of other points raised in the creating a map thread, but of course has its limitations (one being that selected locations are not highlighted - apparently the feature is in the pipeline) and idiosyncrasies, too. On balance I reckon its positives outweigh its negatives, especially so for the estimation of its superior power to invite folk directly to the suttas.

If it is wanted (it can be cleaned up as per the below and) it is there for the taking.


Irrespectively, paying closer attention to the map (well, at least some parts of it) within the process, some details where highlighted to me:

- There seems a little inconsistency in a few of the entries with regards to the way in which the DPPN has been edited for SC. Eg. the description for Āpaṇa has had references to ThagA.ii.47 and MA.ii.586 removed, however, there are other places where similar material is given: Bārānasī; Vedisa; Gayāsīsa; Sākya & Dakkhiṇāpatha.

There a bunch of tiny amendments & corrections that could be made

Aggāḷave Cetiya: “Vaṅgīsa Sutta” → “Nigrodhakappa [Vaṅgīsa]”

Andhavana: “Snp5” → “SN5”

Añjanavana: exploration of the basis for the description to this entry claiming the Jarā Sutta (Snp4.6) was preached here shows that the information comes from Jātaka 68 (The Jataka, Volume I: Book I.--Ekanipāta: No. 68. Sāketa-Jātaka). As such the detail was added to the description (“Here were preached the Sāketa Sutta and (according to Jātaka 68) the Jarā Sutta”) in the uMap version.

Bhaddiya: “Vin.ii.242” → “Vin.i.242”

Bārānasī: In SC’s DPPN the entry ends mid sentance.


Campā: “Vin.i.3121” → “Vin.i.312”; “the Vinaya Piṭaka Vin.i.312ff. Vin.ii.307” → " the Vinaya Pitaka (Vin.i.312ff; see also Vin.ii.307)"

Dakkhiṇāpatha: “Dharana” → “Dhovana”

Goyogapilakkha: needs to be moved over a little to Isipatana.

Iccānaṅgala: “MN.ii.146” → “MN.ii.196”

Indapatta: “the Buddhas razor” → “the Buddha’s razor”

Isipatana: “SN.384” → “SN.iv.384”

Kammāsadhamma: “MN.ii.26” → “MN.ii.261”

Kapilavatthu: “Ud.25 [ud3.3]” → delete (the story of ud.3.3 paralels the one referenced in the entry description, but is set in different locations)

Kāsi: “Vin.i.28l” → “Vin.i.281”

Kīṭāgiri: “Vin.iii.179” → “Vin.ii.179”

Licchavī: “AN.iii.219” → “AN.iii.239”

Nāḷandā: “SN.ii.311–323” → “SN.iv.311–323”

Pālileyya: “MN.i.320” → “MN.iii.152”

Vesāli: no Ratana sutta appears to have been preached here.

Veḷukaṇḍa: This entry appears to be completely mistaken and probably ought to be removed! It gives as it’s reference an7.52, which makes no mention of Veḷukaṇḍa - an7.52 has almost certainly been mistaken with an6.37 (set in Savatthi).

Ṭaṅkitamañca: “SN.i.206” → “SN.i.207”

- How fortunate I am that “it is growth in the Noble One’s Discipline when one sees one’s transgression as such, makes amends” as I evidently made a blunder in plotting the Verañjā to Benares route. First of all, I didn’t notice that Payāga was already on the map (:-\) so plotted it a second time and this threw everything else out of whack. When taking Allahabad as the location for Payāga the route described in bhikkhu pārājika 1 seems to naturally fall much further north east as suggested in the uMap (this replotting of the Verañjā to Benares route also seems to fit a lot better with the highway between Madhurā and Verañjā mentioned in AN4.53).

- Then a more fruity proposition. Returning to my thoughts above in post #74, I think I was probably wrong there, too, but have come up with an idea that might be even more wrong, but I fearlessly go where the evidence suggests I should (we’ll set aside the fact that I might be looking at the evidence upside down).

  • an8.30 clearly indicates that Pācīnavaṁsadāya is in Cetiya.
  • From kd10 we can feel fairly confident that Bālakaloṇaka, Pācīnavaṁsadāya and Pārileyyaka lie inbetween Kosambī and Sāvatthī. That is to say that Pācīnavaṁsadāya is north of Kosambī.
  • (as suggested in the uMap) kd22 indicates that Sahajāti is lies by a river (the most likely candidate being that Yamuna) as “the monks who were Vajjis of Vesālī, taking these requisites of recluses, went in a boat upstream to Sahājati” and that it falls somewhere on the Verañjā to Benares route. The suttas given in the DPPN description for Sahājati positively identify it as being in Cetiya.
  • Returning to Bhikkhu Pācittiyā 51 story considered in post #74, whereas I previously thought “touring for alms in the Cetiya country, set out for Bhaddavatikā” might conceivably be understood as saying the Buddha started in Cetiya and then left it for Bhaddavatika, I’m now inclined to think that by “touring for alms in the Cetiya country” it is meant that the whole narrative is set in Cetiya, including when it reaches Kosambī.
  • Naturally, I know that Kosambī is taken as the capital of Vamsa, but I’m wondering if there’s any possibility that Cetiya and Vamsa was territories in flux over the course of the Buddha’s life and that they may have overlapped.
  • Remotely reasonable?

If you think any of the alterations suggested in the uMap are worth transferring to the Google map, of course, I’d be happy to.

3 Likes

Hi Aminah, this is awesome. I am still getting my head around what you’ve actually done here.

So how did you actually do this???

Interesting, I’m not familiar with the app at all. I’m not hugely enamoured of being connected to Google’s ecosystem, and would much prefer an open source alternative. On the other hand, Google Maps is really good, and there are lots of bugs with the uMap interface. And not to forget, we are building a Material Design site, which will closely match the interface of Google Maps.

How easy is it to port the data across?

I’m sure there are. The general idea was to remove all references to later material, but there’s a lot of stuff and it will be imperfect. I don’t think it’s a huge problem if there are occasional later references left behind.

As for the corrections you list, I will do these when i get a chance, thanks for noting them.

I really don’t know, but sure, there may well have been fluidity and overlap. We know that some boundaries, at least, shifted in this time, i.e. Benares, and that the whole map was totally redrawn just a few decades later.

1 Like

Wow, very impressed @Aminah!

I will have to have a look at all this in a bit more detail.

With regards to the material design aspect, Polymer has a google-maps element that I was looking at using, but I could not find one for umap.

Note that corrections have to be made in two places now: the dictionary in our backend and in the map.

1 Like

I had a mysterious adventure playing about with the klm files in which I finally gave myself an introductory education on regex.

Ditto, except, I’d want to suggest Google Maps is really good on most things, but a bit rubbish on some; not being able to insert discrete links in descriptions being one, a limitation on amount of description that can be inserted being another, and a link redirect delay and a limitation on the number of layers that can be used thrown in for fun.

Oooh, cool! I didn’t know that.

It takes a tiny bit of time, but is easy enough for it to be perfectly doable (more kml and regex fun :smiley: ). The question of whether it is desirable might be another thing: here is an example with the capitals layer. Much as I’m all for hooting and tooting for the open source movement, the reason why I looked at uMap is because for the purpose of adding links Google Maps is the poorer option.

In many other circumstances I wouldn’t be overly fussed about the aesthetic, but here I feel inserting a bunch of long links has an excessively detrimental effect on the ability to read/access the given information.

Furthermore, for shorter entries it’s not a problem, but, given the description limit, for longer entries it means the description will get cut off: eg. Bārānasī, or Rājagaha.

Yep, there surely are! Delicate balance and all. My criteria went something like

  • satisfies certain requirements unsatisfied elsewhere
  • poorly performing aspects are not so bad as to preclude the experiment (at one point I thought the data wasn’t searchable which would have put a swift end to that idea)
  • allowance for the “it is adoption that supports development” principle.

I did, however, make my assessment well before adding the territory (polygon) layers, and this might have tipped things in another way as uMap really doesn’t seem to be able to cope with them especially well.

In any case, there is now an additional bit of data available (new number conversions) that should be easily enough extractable and adaptable for other applications.

Me either, but I just don’t see how else to reconcile the information that Pācīnavaṁsadāya and Sahajāti were in Cetiya. A big shrug of the shoulders on that one!

Yes, but not toooo much detail, right? There’s just no way that I haven’t made at least a few mistakes. :fearful:

Shucks! Looks like another introductory education for me :laughing:

Hmm, maybe Google Maps API could be poked into. I’m a bit conscious of unhelpful efforts to help that cause distraction and cost time, so perhaps all could enjoy a spell of amnesia with regards to the above at least for the while of further exploration. :wink:

No worries, explore away.

Much as I love the open source world, it seems to me that there is no way the open source ecosystem is going to compete with Google maps for the forseeable future.

The reason is that it’s not just maps. I think what Google is building is a 3D digital representation of the entire world. Like, every single material object in the world. This will be a cornerstone of their future tech, including, obviously, self-driving cars, even flying cars, but also VR.

Add AI, which will create a digital representation of all the minds in the world, fueled with all the information from social media. Stir well, and we all have an AI-powered virtual avatar living in that digital world, interacting with other avatars. Like Second Life, except, you know alive. Want to know what a certain restaurant is like? Send your avatar to have a meal there, with a few friends, and afterwards it can tell you, not what a reviewer thinks, but what you think.

2 Likes

:laughing: Well, when you put it like that building a digital road to Sāvatthī seems of much greater consequence than I imagined!

Maybe we could recreate ancient India in 3D to visit and listen to a sermon by the Buddha!

1 Like