Notes on geography for Map of Early Buddhism

I’m not quite sure if this is addressed to me. In any case, I couldn’t find any listing for Nādikā in the DPPN when I added it, but perhaps the description from the entry for Kakudha would do? Naturally, I’ll leave it for someone else to decide - not least because I find it a bit disorienting to look at the map with the satellite map selected for the base layer. :laughing:

Not addressed to anybody in particular but maybe @Sujato can make a decision on this and also on the base layer.
Another thing I found is that Bahuputtakanigrodha and Ambalaṭṭhikā are in exactly the same spot. I guess the grove is inside the park but maybe it can be moved slightly so as to make a difference when embedding it on SC.

1 Like

You’re right, it is missing from the dict. Also missing from palikanon.org, so not sure what’s happening here.

Any other thoughts on this? I asked for this so that it looked like the real world. But maybe its a bad idea!

Sure.

i agree with Aminah, and it looks dark and bleak and gloomy unlike its cheerful predecessor

Okay, I give in, let’s change it back!

Meanwhile, @Vimala has thrown up a trial implementation of the map here. Check it out!

nice

is it going to automatically load for each dictionary entry on a place name?

That’s the idea, still working out the implementation.

Possibly include it in the texts as well, click on a place name to see a map. But that would be more complex and I don’t know if it’s worth it. Really, once someone has been alerted to the fact that there is a map, they can use it as they wish.

1 Like

How lovely, I didn’t really have any idea how it was going to be used. Tipping my hat @Vimala.

1 Like

I have added some text for Nādikā based on the text in other parts of the dppn. @Sujato and @Aminah, please have a look what you think. Other than that, we also have texts with reference to 4 citizens of Nādikā, which I have not added. Texts are like:

Kakudha was a lay disciple of the Buddha who dwelt at Nādikā. When the Buddha arrived at Nādikā on his last journey, Ānanda asked him what had happened to Kakudha, who was already dead. The Buddha replied that Kakudha had found birth in the highest heavens, there to pass away entirely.

Sofar we have not added any texts based on people or places within the cities, etc. Would it be an idea to do this as well and go over the entire sc_dppn?

1 Like

It looks fine, thanks. I don’t know about adding all the other entries, though, it sounds like a lot of work …

I have a question about the discrepancies with the territories of AḶAKA, DAKKHIṆĀPATHA and ASSAKA:

  1. I notice that @Sujato already mentioned that Dakkhiṇāpatha probably just means “southern territories”. It is plotted as a very big territory but that does not match up with the description that is presented here (see below). It sounds more like it is a small territory between Alaka and Assaka.

  2. Bāvarī is said in the descriptions to have lived in between Alaka and Assaka but the two are plotted rather far apart now.

  3. Assaka is said to be to the north-west of Avanti, in between Avanti and Sūrasena but is plotted to the south-west of Avanti instead. The clue being in the sentence: .. the Godāvarī settlement, in the Dakkhiṇāpatha, was a later colony. But that raises the question if we should not also plot part of Assaka in between Avanti and Sūrasena???

  4. Patiṭṭhāna is plotted on the east side of Alaka and not the north as it says in the description.

Not entirely sure what to do with all this and I guess not much is known about these territories. Any suggestions?

AḶAKA is described as: A country on the banks of the Godhāvarī River. It was at a spot between the territories of the Alaka and the Assaka kings that Bāvarī lived. Snp.977 To the north of Alaka was Patiṭṭhāna. Snp.1011

DAKKHIṆĀPATHA is described as: In the old Pāḷi literature the name Dakkhiṇāpatha would seem to indicate only a remote settlement or colony on the banks of the upper Godāvarī. Thus, we are told that Bāvarī had his hermitage in Dakkhiṇāpatha territory, midway between the kingdoms of Assaka and Alaka. Snp.976 Elsewhere the name is coupled with Avanti as Avantidakkhiṇāpatha and seems to refer, but more vaguely, to the same limited district. Vin.i.195Vin.i.196Vin.ii.298

ASSAKA is described as: The Assakas had settlements on the Godāvarī, and Bāvarī’s hermitage Snp.977 was in their territory, in close proximity to the Alaka or Mūlaka (the district round Paithan). The country is mentioned with Avanti in the same way as Aṅga with Māgadha, and its position in the list between Sūrasena and Avanti makes it probable that when the list was drawn up, its position was immediately to the north-west of Avanti. It is probable, in that case, that the Godāvarī settlement, in the Dakkhiṇāpatha, was a later colony.

Reading the descriptions I also thought Dakkhiṇāpatha sounded like a territory between Alaka and Assaka (saying that, I don’t fully trust all the descriptions as I think in a few places they give conflicting information).

One more little detail about the definition of Dakkhiṇāpatha might be taken from the description for Godhāvarī / Godhāvari

A river in Dakkhiṇāpatha, of which it forms the southern boundary

Incidentally, in the original map you posted a couple of weeks ago Dakkhiṇāpatha and Patiṭṭhāna were plotted at exactly the same location.

That Patiṭṭhāna is plotted on the east side of Alaka and not the north as it says in the description is my bad. I wasn’t all that fond of marking out the regions . With the ones that I did do it felt all too ‘willy-nilly’ for my liking. In the case of Alaka I took the Godhāvarī River as my focal point. Then I ‘grew’ the territory a few times thinking my first efforts were much too disproportionately small by comparison to the other territories. In and amongst it I obviously lost sight of the Patiṭṭhāna detail. Apologies.

The problem is that these places are pretty much all known from just one text, which itself is very vague. As “Dakkhinapatha” literally means “south-way” it could potentially be as vague as “Deccan” (which is the modern abbreviation) or as specific as “Norway”, or, perhaps, both.

The DPPN must be relying on the opening verses of the Parayanavagga, which however do not really justify it:

Kosalānaṃ purā rammā, agamā dakkhiṇāpathaṃ;
Ākiñcaññaṃ patthayāno, brāhmaṇo mantapāragū.

So assakassa visaye, aḷakassa samāsane;
Vasi godhāvarīkūle, uñchena ca phalena ca.

From the delightful city of the Kosalans to the Southern lands went
one who wanted to have no possessions, a brahmin perfect in the Vedas.

In the locality of Assaka, and near to Mūḷaka (This is variant reading)
close to the bank of the Godhāvari he lived on gleanings and fruit.

Rather than dakkhiṇāpatha being “a spot between the territories of Alaka and Assaka” it reads to me more naturally if it is understood firstly that he went more generally to the “southern regions”, and more specifically “in” Assaka.

As for Alaka, the problem is that the word samāsana is found nowhere else except an obscure Jataka verse, where it appears to refer to a king who “shares his throne” with another. If this meaning applies here it might imply that it was a region jointly ruled by both Assaka and Alaka.

The DPPN errs again, I think, in inferring that Assaka is to the N-W of Avanti. It’s only reason is the sequence of names in a list, where Assaka occurs together with Avanti. This is too slim, and in addition we find Avanti and Dakkhinapatha used together, as in the Sattasatikakkhandhaka (avanti­dak­khi­ṇā­patha­kānañca bhikkhūnaṃ). So I would dismiss this notion and the inference that the Godhavari mention is “just a colony”.

I’ve adjusted the map so that Assaka and Alaka overlap. I have also moved the Dakkhinapatha a little to the west so that it reaches the ocean. Kd 11 mentions a merchant of Dakkhinapatha, and while sea-trading is not specifically mentioned there, it is very likely that a western port was established there, which would become a chief trading nexus with Rome.

I haven’t changed the entry text, but feel free to do so if you wish.

Right now the river is plotted right in the middle. But then again, rivers also shift.

Some more interesting texts on this but it is clear nobody knows exactly what is going on and that will have to be reflected in the description.
http://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/Reference/Geography-of-Early-Buddhism/04-Far-South.htm

Another interesting detail here:
http://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/Maps/Map-03-Parayana.htm
(There are other nice maps as well …)

It seems clear to me that the Dakkhiṇāpatha is not actually a country or republic and should therefore not fall under this heading. I will make another layer for this.

There’s no reason to think the river is the southern boundary. The sources mentioned about are pretty much the only mentions in the EBTs, so everything else is a guess.

By the way, speaking of countries and republics, I think it might be good if the description for Dakkhiṇāgiri were adjusted in line with Ven. Sujato’s comments above and at least remove, “the capital of which was Ujjeni”, seeing as how Ujjeni clearly isn’t in the marked out territory.

Please go ahead these edits, although it’s perhaps better to make the edits in the source files for the DPPN. The text we are using has been edited by yours truly already, and it is a good idea to fix mistakes as we go.

If there are any other places than these where the description on the map has changed, please let me know so I can change it in the dppn also. I have now changed Assaka and Dakkhinapatha, also in the dppn (not online yet). Let me know what you think.

Can I conclude that Dakkhiṇāgiri is also a vague region like Dakkhiṇāpatha and not a country/republic? Then maybe enlarge the area to also include (part of) Avanti.

Maps are now online on SC with their descriptions. For some reason I could not get it to work on Staging so it is life now.

2 Likes