Notes on geography for Map of Early Buddhism

Well alright, but don’t let that get in the way of a good story.

O, good. I was thinking you’d need a coolgardie safe.

1 Like

Yikes! I feel like such a fraud, it was just my British ‘humour’ and only it hit 23C yesterday (which the internet tells me is 73F). This was, nevertheless, enough to almost cripple my computer so I’ll keep an eye out for a luxury kuti!

3 Likes

I saw no reason not to add Haliddavasana - the margin of error seems well within what has been taken as acceptable and it’s not in an overly cluttered area - in turn I did so.

1 Like

Hey @Aminah I just noticed another spot for inclusion. In SN 7.11 we have:

bhagavā magadhesu viharati dakkhiṇāgirismiṃ ekanāḷāyaṃ brāhmaṇagāme
The Buddha was staying in the land of the Magadhans in the Southern Hills in the brahmin village of Ekanāḷa.

Ekanāḷa is missing from our map, but the description is precise enough for us to include it, no? Our map already shows an overlap between Magadha and Dakkhinagiri, so somewhere in there.

3 Likes

Lovely, added!

In fact, Ekanāḷā was given under the list “Not added but easily to conceivably plottable” in post 4 of this thread; I’m sure a number more of those locations could happily be added - although just at the minute I don’t have the time to re-run through the list.

2 Likes

Thanks so much.

We can keep adding things at our leisure, on a rainy Saturday afternoon.

1 Like

what’s left to do is make it display at https://suttacentral.net/define/ekanāḷā

or does it simply wait for the next site update?

1 Like

Not sure; @vimala, does anything else need to be done now?

:slight_smile: Thanks for reminding me. It’s done.

2 Likes

Another little detail. The DPPN recognizes a place called ṭankitama. This is, however, a mistake, the place name is ṭaṅkita-mañca, i.e. “cut-stone bed”. We would be better off eliminating the mistake and giving only ṭaṅkitamañca, perhaps with variant taṅkitamañca.

In addition, the place is said to be near Gaya, so we can probably locate it on the map.

Done that in the backend.
@Aminah, can you plot it on the map?
Thanks!

Yep. :slight_smile:

Edit: Done :slight_smile:

1 Like

I’ve also added in the backend so the map is there now:
https://suttacentral.net/define/ṭaṅkitamañca

2 Likes

So, finally it started raining and it is Saturday here in the UK, and in California it is even afternoon!

First on the list: Ambatittha / Ambatitthā / Ambatiṭṭha. I would find it acceptable to plot both it and Bhaddavatika at somewhere around 25.29933, 80.23864.

Working out

Key reference: Pacittiya 51 Analysis

Text: “On one ocasion the Lord was touring for alms in the Cetiya country, set out for Bhaddavatikā. [Then everyone said don’t go to Ambatittha] Then the lord, touring for alms, in the course of time arrived at Bhaddavatikā. The lord stayed there at Bhaddavatika. [The Ven. Sāgata whent to and returned from Ambatittha] Then the lord, having stayed at Bhaddavatikā for as long as he found suitable, departed on an alms-tour to Kosambī. … Then the lord, touring for alms, in the course of time arrived at Kosambī.”

Impression: Ambatittha is very close to / on the outskirts of Bhaddavatikā. Contrary to the DPPN, I’m not convinced that either of these locations are in Cetiya (the implication is that the Buddha left Cetiya to head for Bhaddavatika), but rather lie somewhere in the middle of the eastern boarder of Cetiya and Kosambi.

Intrigued to know if any rough, standard distance could be extracted from the phrase “touring for alms, in the course of time arrived at” a search was performed on, “Atha kho bhagavā anupubbena cārikaṃ caramāno yena” yielding 6 results (setting pc51 aside):

    SN 22.81: 
        Kosambi -> Parileyyaka (? location) = 25km

    Kd 1:
        Uruvelā -> Benares = 215km
        Benares -> Uruvelā = 215km
        Gayā -> Rājagaha = 50km

    Kd 6: 
        Rājagaha -> Sāvatthī = 435km
        Benares -> Andhakavinda = ?
        Andhakavinda -> Rājagaha = ?
        Rājagaha -> Pāṭaligāma = 80km
        Vesālī -> Bhaddiya = 170km
        Bhaddiya -> Āpaṇa = 60km
        Āpaṇa -> Kusinārā = 350km

    Kd 8:
        Rājagaha -> Vesālī = 115km

    Kd 15:
        Rājagaha -> Vesālī = 115km

    Kd 16:
        Vesālī -> Sāvatthī = 350km
        Sāvatthī -> Kiṭāgiri (? location) = 185km

Clearly no standard length can be taken from this, but despite, no-doubt, giving a highly distorted view (as a matter of curiosity), the average distance is 182km. At the very least I reckon 25.29933, 80.23864 would sit happily within the kinds of distances the phrase has been used in connection with.

As a side note: is white spirits really the would-be tipple of choice of monastics?!

Whatchya reckon?

1 Like

That seems fine. Just a note that “touring for alms” is not an accurate translation. This is not the stock phrase for a monastic walking for alms in a village. Rather it is a general term to mean “walking on tour, going on a journey”.

2 Likes

When you are done, please post it here with an @Vimala tag. For some reason I don’t get notifications on this topic.

1 Like

could Ambatittha be a name of a larger territorial division which included Bhaddavatika? such possibility can be construed from the translation

Seems perfectly reasonable to me [edit: if you switched Bhaddavatikā and Ambatittha around] , whatever the case they’re both just getting question marks on the map. :slight_smile:

Dear Ayya @Vimala, some additions:

Ambatittha / Ambatitthā / Ambatiṭṭha -
Bhaddavatikā

note: as per the above, Bhaddavatikā & Ambatittha have been placed outside of Cetiya contrary to the DPPN description


Ambasaṇḍā
Uttara / Uttaraka
Kakkarapatta
Kaṇṇakujja / Kaṇṇagocchaka / Kaṇṇagotta
Kapotakandara
Kassapakārāma / Kassapārāma
Khomadussa
Gotamatittha
Gomatakakandarā / Gomatakandarā / Gomatakaṇḍarā

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?