[Yours, Krishna M. Srivastav (with whom you differ), Charles Allen and some others distance measurement and direction travelled by both the pilgrims can’t be attested given the treacherous route passing through the dense forest and winding rivers - from Kapilvastu to Lumbini or Rama Grama etc. as there are already some discrepancies in measurement of distance in between the two pilgrims.]
* Many thanks Terrence. You wrote in your message below, “This is thus a very serious matter indeed - it is on such errors that forgeries are detected - and unless you can deal with it, then either you or anyone else cannot reasonably expect to be taken seriously either.”
By B. K. Rana
* And here we shall write ‘Sakyamuni and Sakamuni’ both have same philological value whether you name them either Prakrit or Hybrid-Sanskrit as they fall within the same family. Here comes the real issue: a native and non-native explanation(s) of language and culture. We would go after D. C. Sircar’s reading of Lumbini Inscription. We hope to hear from Max Deeg also as he has produced a serious report also from the Chinese Text, which you seem to be contesting.
* Yours, Krishna M. Srivastav (with whom you differ), Charles Allen and some others distance measurement and direction travelled by both the pilgrims can’t be attested given the treacherous route passing through the dense forest and winding rivers - from Kapilvastu to Lumbini or Rama Grama etc. as there are already some discrepancie in measurement of distance in between the two pilgrims.
* We would like to write here again in reply to your latest email posted below that the Chinese pilgrims' stories may be taken as ‘historical facts’ but not the epigraphical evidence like Lumbini Pillar inscription; Sakya Token, 9th layer PGWare plus NBP,(700 BC – 300 BC) of Tilaurakot; Piprahawa reliquaries and Ripu Mardan Malla's visit and inscription - 'Om Mani Padme Hum' - of 12th Century AD .
* We have here added John Huntington’s assessment of your research findings as he writes on the Buddha birth place question to the Indo-Eurasian Research Forum ]
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 5:31 PM, terence phelps <taphelken@hotmail.com> wrote:
P.S. Further to my last email on Lumbini, I'd like to add that given a straight choice between the evidence of the Chinese pilgrims, and that of the most notorious forger of Brahmi inscriptions known to Indology (Fuhrer), I'll take the testimony of the pilgrims every time.
Terry Phelps
2010/4/23 Terence Phelps taphelken@hotmail.com
Further to my last email, I shall point out that you are also failing to address the fact that the Padariya inscription contains a glaring error which exposes it as a forgery, viz, the presence of 'Sakyamuni' in the inscription itself. This is a big mistake! It is scarcely surprising that Fuhrer slipped up here however, since I have it on very good authority that though he was a reasonably competent Sanskritist, Fuhrer knew little about the Prakrits (and the Padariya inscription would have been written in a Prakrit, of course). Indeed, I also have it on very good authority that 'sakyamuni' shouldn't be present in an Asokan Brahmi inscription at all, and as I have written in my website: Lumbini On Trail: The Untold Story
Sakyamuni is a Sanskritised form of this term, and first occurred when the north-western Prakrit inscriptions began to show Sanskrit influence - so-called Epigraphical Hybrid Sanskrit, a change which arose two or three centuries after Asoka - and before this development it was always written as 'Sakamuni', in both Brahmi and Kharosthi inscriptions. There would thus appear to be no epigraphical support for the presence of 'Sakyamuni' in this Asokan Brahmi inscription, and I shall charge that this exposes it as yet another Fuhrer forgery. Commenting on an inscription on the Wardak Vase (2nd century AD) N. G. Majumdar writes that 'the name is Sankritized as Śakyamuni' (Epigraphia Indica, Vol. 24, p. 2). Though I can find no other instance of sakyamuni - as distinct from sakamuni - in any other Brahmi inscription, it occurs in ten Kharosthi inscriptions. Of these, six show sakamuni, while the four showing sakyamuni - those on the Avaca, Kurram, and two Wardak caskets - were all found in either north-western Pakistan or Afghanistan. And as J. F. Fleet observed:
'The inscriptions of India are the only sure grounds of historical results in every line of research connected with its ancient past; they regulate everything that we can learn from coins, architecture, art, literature, tradition, or any other source.'
This is thus a very serious matter indeed - it is on such errors that forgeries are detected - and unless you can deal with it, then either you or anyone else cannot reasonably expect to be taken seriously either.
Terry Phelps
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Terence Phelps wrote:
There is, as you say, a well-known discrepancy in the pilgrims' accounts regarding the location of Konagamana's town and Krakuchandra's town, but this is of little real consequence, since I have noted that writers often confuse east and west (though rarely north and south). Cunningham did it, Smith did it, Watters did it, I've done it myself, and the latest translation of Yuan-chuang's account (by a Chinese guy) places the Ashes Stupa to the north-east of the Place of Renunciation instead of to the south-east. But when the pilgrims AGREE on both distance and direction (and the 500 li of Yuan-chuang is seen to match the 12 yojanas of Fa-hsien elsewhere in their accounts) then that's what you deal with, since they both WENT there! And we can check their measurements against known identifications (Vaisali to Patatliputra(Patna) for example, which is 35 miles, and which Fa-hsien gives as 5 yojanas: thus 1 yojana Padariya pillar, just remember that it was discovered by a crook, Khadga Shamsher, together with the most prolific and expert forger of Brahmi inscriptions ever known (Fuhrer, who we KNOW incised other phony Brahmi inscriptions on to stone) and you've then got a very different perspective indeed on the reliability of 'Rummindei'.
Terry Phelps
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 13:04:48 -0500
Subject: Re:NO CONFIRMATION REQUIRED/ BRITISH ARCHEOLOGISTS CONFIRM LUMBINI AS BUDDHA'S BIRTHPLACE
From: himalayanvoice@gmail.com
To: DeegM1@cardiff.ac.uk; directorgeneralasi@gmail.com; info@doa.gov.np; enquiries.arch@durham.ac.uk; A.Schmidt@bradford.ac.uk
Dear All,
No 'confirmation' in any form or means by anyone is required whether the Buddha was born in present Lumbini or somewhere else. The Lumbini Ashokan Inscription can't be changed or kept like the separated head and body of ‘John the Baptist’ in different places ( head here and body some where there to please the arguing mass of people !) in between Nepal and India
Keeping in view of the on-going debate on Kapilvastu we posted yesterday the news item, as in the form and style it had appeared in The Washing Post (News Look now Nepal Monitor also) 10 years ago only to 'feed' the debate. We have posted our note at the bottom of the post why we thought it would be right to post such a fairly old article.
Now coming to the point, the location, direction and distance ( 1 Yojana = 4.5 ? or 9 miles ? ) of different places around Kaplivastu by the two Chinese pilgrims differ because they visited those places 200 years before or after each other. For example Huen Tsang puts Krakuchanda Buddha's birth place 50 li South from the Kapilvastu where as Fah Hien puts it 1.4 yojana south west of it. Both the Chinese travelers differ against the location of Kanakmuni and Krakuchanda towns.
They both have placed Krakuchanda town in the southerly direction whereas Kanakmuni is placed in the opposite directions. Fa-Hien places Kanakmuni town west but Huen Tsang puts it in east of Kapilvastu. But we do not find these pilgrims making any mentioning of Piprahawa Stupa etc. So, no one can 'Just follow the pilgrims' paths only. Mr. Phelps should have considered these points. The archaeological evidence (circumstantial evidence and epigraphical evidence) can't be ignored while discussing historical notes of some travellers. Mr. Max Deeg is right to advise Mr. Phelps to review also the recent works on the holy archaeological sites.
We blame the Maoist law maker who took this issue to the streets of Kathmandu and also to the apex body in the country, kind of just coming out of the jungle, for nothing other than three four wrong words in a book published 2 years earlier.( Those Maoists should have discussed with other hundreds or thousands out there who have nearly hundred years ago already written otherwise about the Buddha birth place.)
Nationalism is right but not in everything.
Thank you all. You have a nice day,
_______________________
The Himalayan Voice Team
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 5:51 AM, Max Deeg <DeegM1@cardiff.ac.uk> wrote:
Dear all,
I know that Mr. Phelps has chosen to ignore me and my research, but I want to comment on the issue of the Chinese pilgrims: reconstruction on the pure basis of (19th) century translations of these texts are doomed to be a failure. The single bits and pieces of information have to be read in the context of other text-internal and external evidence. I am the last person to deny these sources their high value for historical research, but statements like "Just follow the pilgrims, you know it makes sense. They WENT there, and you really can't argue with that." at best reflect unwillingness to critically engage with the material, especially if it does not fit into one's own framework of interpretation. I hesitate to say this, but I find it very strange what strong conclusions are drawn here by self-declared specialists who have no direct access to the relevant sources, neither the textual nor the archaeological ones, and who mostly ignore scholarly literature published after World War I. And I again would like to ask discussants to give up the nationalist undertones which are completely anachronistic in a discussion about where a certain place was located in the first half of the first millennium B.C. which is connected with a person who certainly did not think of himself in national categories.
Kind Regards,
Max Deeg
Professor Max Deeg
Head of School
School of Religious and Theological Studies
From: terence phelps [mailto:taphelken@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 3:20 PM
Subject: RE: BRITISH ARCHEOLOGISTS CONFIRM LUMBINI AS BUDDHA'S BIRTHPLACE
”This is absurd. Why do we have to get a confirmation from British whether Buddha was born in Lumbini or not?”
Well, since the British 'discovered' the present site in the first place (not the Nepalese, who had never heard of it) perhaps we might still be in a position to comment. And what the British 'discovered', they are also best in a position to expose as phony : see http://www.lumkap.org.uk for the REAL Lumbini site, the one that both of the Chinese pilgrims visited. Just follow the pilgrims, you know it makes sense. They WENT there, and you really can't argue with that.
Terry Phelps (UK
Subject: RE: BRITISH ARCHEOLOGISTS CONFIRM LUMBINI AS BUDDHA'S BIRTHPLACE
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:05:11 -0500
This is absurd. Why do we have to get a confirmation from British whether Buddha was born in Lumbini or not? Are they Buddha’s relatives who were present in Lumbini when Buddha was born? He was born there and it has been historically passed along by our great ancestors. Do we have any doubts on where Buddha was born? The debate lingering around is about the “misinformation” transmitted by people like Fareed Zakaria about territory, not the physical holy place Lumbini’s existence or Buddha birth place.
Sincerely,
Ashutosh Shrivastav
From: The Himalayan Voice [mailto:himalayanvoice@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 11:43 AM
To: Prof. Sudarshan Raj Tiwari; Prof. Shanker Thapa; ANIK RASI; bhushri007@gmail.com;
Subject: BRITISH ARCHEOLOGISTS CONFIRM LUMBINI AS BUDDHA'S BIRTHPLACE
Thursday, April 22, 2010
British Archeologists say, indeed, Buddha was born in Nepal
________________________
