Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1The two points on which Westergaard differs from me, seem to me questions which should be kept before our mind in dealing with early Buddhist history, but which, for the present at least, admit of no definite solution. The same remark seems to me to apply to the calculations of another eminent Sanskrit scholar, Professor Kern ?. He lays great stress on the general untrustworthiness of Indian chronology, and I am the last to differ from him on that point. He then places the beginning of Kandragupta’s reign in 322. B.C. Allowing twenty-four years to him and twenty-eight to his son Bindusdra, he places the beginning of Asoka’s reign in 270. Asoka’s inscriptions would fall about 258. As Asoka reigned thirty-six or thirty-seven years, his death would fall in 234 or 233 B.C. Like Westergaard, Professor Kern too eliminates K4lasoka, as a kind of chronological Asoka, and the Council of Vaisali, and therefore places Buddha’s death, according to the northern tradition, 100 or 110 years before Dharmasoka, i.e. 270+ 100 or + 110=370 or 380°; while, according to the southern 1 Westergaard, loc. cit. p. 128. 3 Jaartelling der Zuidelijke Buddhisten, 1873. * See Professor Ker’s remark in Indian Antiquary, 1874, p. 79. XXXVIli DHAMMAPADA. tradition, that 118 years elapsed between Asoka’s accession and Buddha’s death, the Ceylonese monks would seem originally to have retained 270+ 118!= 388 B.c. as Buddha’s Nirvaza, a date which, as Professor Kern holds, happens to coincide with the date assigned to the death of Mahavira, the founder of the Gaina religion. Here we see again that the moot point is the beginning of Kandragupta’s reign in accordance with the information supplied by Greek historians. Professor Kern places it in 322, Westergaard in 320, I myself in 315. That difference once granted, Dr. Kern’s reasoning is the same as my own. According to the traditions which we follow, Buddha’s death took place 100, 110, 118, or 228 years before Asoka, Hence Professor Westergaard arrives at 368 or 370 B.C. Professor Kern at 370 (380) or 388 B.c., I myself at 477 B.C. Every one of these dates is liable to certain objections, and if I prefer my own date, 477 B.C., it is simply because it seems to me liable to neither more nor less reservations than those of Professor Westergaard and Professor Kern, and because, so long as we always remember the grounds of our differences, namely, the beginning of Kandragupta’s reign, and the additional century, every one of these dates furnishes a good hypothesis to work on, until we can arrive at greater certainty in the ancient chronology of India. To my mind all dates beyond Kandragupta are as yet purely tentative, resting far more on a chronological theory than on actual tradition; and though I do not doubt the historical character of the Council of VaisAli, I look upon the date assigned to it, on the authority of the Dipavamsa and Mahdavamsa, as, for the present, hypothetical only.
2* When Professor Kern states that the MahAvamsa (p. 22) places the Third Council 218 years after Buddha’s death, this isnot so. Asoka’s abhisheka takes place in that year. The prophecy that a calamity would befall their religion, 118 years after the Second Council (Mahavamsa, p. 28), does not refer to the Council, but to Kandasoka’s accession, 477 — 218 = 259 B.C. INTRODUCTION. XXXIX B.C. 557. Buddha born. 552. Bimbis4ra born. 537-485. Bimbis4ra, 5 years younger than Buddha, was 15 when crowned, 30 or 31 when he met Buddha in 522. 485-453. AgAtasatru (4 x8 years). 477. Buddha’s death (485—8=477). 477. COUNCIL AT RAGAGRIHA under KAsyapa, Ananda, and Upiili. 453-437. Udayibhadra (2 x 8 years). Anuruddhaka (8 years). 437-429. { Munda (at Paalpeen) 429-405. Nagadasaka (3 x 8 years). 405-387. Sisundga (at Vaisali). 387-359. Kalasoka. 377. COUNCIL AT VAISALI, under Yasas and Revata, a disciple of Ananda (259 +1 18= 377). 359-337. Ten sons of KAlasoka (22 years). 337-315. Nine Nandas (22 years); the last, Dhanananda, killed by Kazakya. 315-291. Kandragupta (477 —162=315; 3x 8 years)". 291-263. Bindusdra. 263-259. Asoka, sub-king at Uggayini, as pretender— his brothers killed. 259. Asoka anointed at PAéaliputra (477 —218=259). 256. Asoka converted by Nigrodha (D.V. VI, 18). 256-253. Building of Viharas, Sthdpas, &c. 255. Conversion of Tishya (M.V. p. 34). 253- Ordination of Mahendra (born 477—204=273). 251. Tishya and Sumitra die (D.V. VII, 32). 242. COUNCIL AT PATALIPUTRA (259—17=242; 477— 236=241), under Tishya Maudgaliputra (477—236=241 ; D.V. vil, 37). 241. Mahendra to Ceylon. 22%. Asoka died (259—37=222). 193. Mahendra died (D. V. XVII, 93). 161. Duftthagamani. 88-76. Vattagdmani, canon reduced to writing. 400. Dipavamsa. 420. Buddhaghosha, P4li commentaries. 459-477. Mahavamsa. 1 Westergaard, 320—296; Kem, 322-298. xl DHAMMAPADA.
3241. Mahendra to Ceylon. 22%. Asoka died (259—37=222). 193. Mahendra died (D. V. XVII, 93). 161. Duftthagamani. 88-76. Vattagdmani, canon reduced to writing. 400. Dipavamsa. 420. Buddhaghosha, P4li commentaries. 459-477. Mahavamsa. 1 Westergaard, 320—296; Kem, 322-298. xl DHAMMAPADA. Though the preceding table, embodying in the main the results at which I arrived in my History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, still represents what I hold to be true or most probable with respect to Indian chronology, previous to the beginning of our era, yet I suppose I may be expected to say here a few words on the two latest attempts to fix the date of Buddha’s death ; the one by Mr. Rhys Davids in the Numismata Orientalia, Part VI,1877, the other by Dr. Biihler in the Indian Antiquary, 1877 and 18781. Mr. Rhys Davids, to whom we owe so much for the elucidation of the history of Buddha’s religion, accepts Westergaard’s date for the beginning of Kandragupta’s reign, 320 B.C., instead of 322 (Kern), 315 (myself); and as he assigns (p- 41) to Bindus4ra 25 years instead of 28 (Mahavamsa, p. 21), he arrives at 268 as the year of Asoka’s coronation’. He admits that the argument derived from the mention of the five foreign kings in one of Asoka’s inscriptions, dated the twelfth year of his reign, is too precarious to enable us to fix the date of Asoka’s reign more definitely, and though, in a general way, that inscription confirms the date assigned by nearly all scholars to Asoka in the middle of the third century B.C., yet there is nothing in it that Asoka might not have written in 247 quite as well as in 258-261. What chiefly distinguishes Mr. Rhys Davids’ chronology from that of his predecessors is the shortness of the period between Asoka’s coronation and Buddha’s death. On the strength of an examination of the list of kings and the list of the so-called patriarchs, he reduces the traditional 218 years to 140 or 150, and thus arrives at 412 B.C. as the probable beginning of the Buddhist era. In this, however, I cannot follow him, but have to follow Dr. Biihler. As soon as I saw Dr. Biihler’s first essay on the Three New Edicts of Asoka, I naturally felt delighted at the unexpected confirmation which he furnished of the date which I had assigned to Buddha’s death, 477 B.c. And though I am quite aware of the ' Three New Edicts of Asoka, Bombay, 1877; Second Notice, Bombay, 1878. 4 Mr. Rhys Davids on p. 50 assigns the 25 years of Bindusara rightly to the Purdzas, the 28 years to the Ceylon Chronicles, INTRODUCTION. xli
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1The two points on which Westergaard differs from me, seem to me questions which should be kept before our mind in dealing with early Buddhist history, but which, for the present at least, admit of no definite solution. The same remark seems to me to apply to the calculations of another eminent Sanskrit scholar, Professor Kern ?. He lays great stress on the general untrustworthiness of Indian chronology, and I am the last to differ from him on that point. He then places the beginning of Kandragupta’s reign in 322. B.C. Allowing twenty-four years to him and twenty-eight to his son Bindusdra, he places the beginning of Asoka’s reign in 270. Asoka’s inscriptions would fall about 258. As Asoka reigned thirty-six or thirty-seven years, his death would fall in 234 or 233 B.C. Like Westergaard, Professor Kern too eliminates K4lasoka, as a kind of chronological Asoka, and the Council of Vaisali, and therefore places Buddha’s death, according to the northern tradition, 100 or 110 years before Dharmasoka, i.e. 270+ 100 or + 110=370 or 380°; while, according to the southern 1 Westergaard, loc. cit. p. 128. 3 Jaartelling der Zuidelijke Buddhisten, 1873. * See Professor Ker’s remark in Indian Antiquary, 1874, p. 79. XXXVIli DHAMMAPADA. tradition, that 118 years elapsed between Asoka’s accession and Buddha’s death, the Ceylonese monks would seem originally to have retained 270+ 118!= 388 B.c. as Buddha’s Nirvaza, a date which, as Professor Kern holds, happens to coincide with the date assigned to the death of Mahavira, the founder of the Gaina religion. Here we see again that the moot point is the beginning of Kandragupta’s reign in accordance with the information supplied by Greek historians. Professor Kern places it in 322, Westergaard in 320, I myself in 315. That difference once granted, Dr. Kern’s reasoning is the same as my own. According to the traditions which we follow, Buddha’s death took place 100, 110, 118, or 228 years before Asoka, Hence Professor Westergaard arrives at 368 or 370 B.C. Professor Kern at 370 (380) or 388 B.c., I myself at 477 B.C. Every one of these dates is liable to certain objections, and if I prefer my own date, 477 B.C., it is simply because it seems to me liable to neither more nor less reservations than those of Professor Westergaard and Professor Kern, and because, so long as we always remember the grounds of our differences, namely, the beginning of Kandragupta’s reign, and the additional century, every one of these dates furnishes a good hypothesis to work on, until we can arrive at greater certainty in the ancient chronology of India. To my mind all dates beyond Kandragupta are as yet purely tentative, resting far more on a chronological theory than on actual tradition; and though I do not doubt the historical character of the Council of VaisAli, I look upon the date assigned to it, on the authority of the Dipavamsa and Mahdavamsa, as, for the present, hypothetical only.
2* When Professor Kern states that the MahAvamsa (p. 22) places the Third Council 218 years after Buddha’s death, this isnot so. Asoka’s abhisheka takes place in that year. The prophecy that a calamity would befall their religion, 118 years after the Second Council (Mahavamsa, p. 28), does not refer to the Council, but to Kandasoka’s accession, 477 — 218 = 259 B.C. INTRODUCTION. XXXIX B.C. 557. Buddha born. 552. Bimbis4ra born. 537-485. Bimbis4ra, 5 years younger than Buddha, was 15 when crowned, 30 or 31 when he met Buddha in 522. 485-453. AgAtasatru (4 x8 years). 477. Buddha’s death (485—8=477). 477. COUNCIL AT RAGAGRIHA under KAsyapa, Ananda, and Upiili. 453-437. Udayibhadra (2 x 8 years). Anuruddhaka (8 years). 437-429. { Munda (at Paalpeen) 429-405. Nagadasaka (3 x 8 years). 405-387. Sisundga (at Vaisali). 387-359. Kalasoka. 377. COUNCIL AT VAISALI, under Yasas and Revata, a disciple of Ananda (259 +1 18= 377). 359-337. Ten sons of KAlasoka (22 years). 337-315. Nine Nandas (22 years); the last, Dhanananda, killed by Kazakya. 315-291. Kandragupta (477 —162=315; 3x 8 years)". 291-263. Bindusdra. 263-259. Asoka, sub-king at Uggayini, as pretender— his brothers killed. 259. Asoka anointed at PAéaliputra (477 —218=259). 256. Asoka converted by Nigrodha (D.V. VI, 18). 256-253. Building of Viharas, Sthdpas, &c. 255. Conversion of Tishya (M.V. p. 34). 253- Ordination of Mahendra (born 477—204=273). 251. Tishya and Sumitra die (D.V. VII, 32). 242. COUNCIL AT PATALIPUTRA (259—17=242; 477— 236=241), under Tishya Maudgaliputra (477—236=241 ; D.V. vil, 37). 241. Mahendra to Ceylon. 22%. Asoka died (259—37=222). 193. Mahendra died (D. V. XVII, 93). 161. Duftthagamani. 88-76. Vattagdmani, canon reduced to writing. 400. Dipavamsa. 420. Buddhaghosha, P4li commentaries. 459-477. Mahavamsa. 1 Westergaard, 320—296; Kem, 322-298. xl DHAMMAPADA.
3241. Mahendra to Ceylon. 22%. Asoka died (259—37=222). 193. Mahendra died (D. V. XVII, 93). 161. Duftthagamani. 88-76. Vattagdmani, canon reduced to writing. 400. Dipavamsa. 420. Buddhaghosha, P4li commentaries. 459-477. Mahavamsa. 1 Westergaard, 320—296; Kem, 322-298. xl DHAMMAPADA. Though the preceding table, embodying in the main the results at which I arrived in my History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, still represents what I hold to be true or most probable with respect to Indian chronology, previous to the beginning of our era, yet I suppose I may be expected to say here a few words on the two latest attempts to fix the date of Buddha’s death ; the one by Mr. Rhys Davids in the Numismata Orientalia, Part VI,1877, the other by Dr. Biihler in the Indian Antiquary, 1877 and 18781. Mr. Rhys Davids, to whom we owe so much for the elucidation of the history of Buddha’s religion, accepts Westergaard’s date for the beginning of Kandragupta’s reign, 320 B.C., instead of 322 (Kern), 315 (myself); and as he assigns (p- 41) to Bindus4ra 25 years instead of 28 (Mahavamsa, p. 21), he arrives at 268 as the year of Asoka’s coronation’. He admits that the argument derived from the mention of the five foreign kings in one of Asoka’s inscriptions, dated the twelfth year of his reign, is too precarious to enable us to fix the date of Asoka’s reign more definitely, and though, in a general way, that inscription confirms the date assigned by nearly all scholars to Asoka in the middle of the third century B.C., yet there is nothing in it that Asoka might not have written in 247 quite as well as in 258-261. What chiefly distinguishes Mr. Rhys Davids’ chronology from that of his predecessors is the shortness of the period between Asoka’s coronation and Buddha’s death. On the strength of an examination of the list of kings and the list of the so-called patriarchs, he reduces the traditional 218 years to 140 or 150, and thus arrives at 412 B.C. as the probable beginning of the Buddhist era. In this, however, I cannot follow him, but have to follow Dr. Biihler. As soon as I saw Dr. Biihler’s first essay on the Three New Edicts of Asoka, I naturally felt delighted at the unexpected confirmation which he furnished of the date which I had assigned to Buddha’s death, 477 B.c. And though I am quite aware of the ' Three New Edicts of Asoka, Bombay, 1877; Second Notice, Bombay, 1878. 4 Mr. Rhys Davids on p. 50 assigns the 25 years of Bindusara rightly to the Purdzas, the 28 years to the Ceylon Chronicles, INTRODUCTION. xli
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.