Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1And 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 danger of unexpected confirmations of one’s own views, yet, after carefully weighing the objections raised by Mr. Rhys Davids and Professor Pischel against Dr. Biihler’s arguments, I cannot think that they have shaken Dr. Biihler’s position. I fully admit the difficulties in the phraseology of these inscriptions: but I ask, Who could have written these inscriptions, if not Asoka? And how, if written by Asoka, can the date which they contain mean anything but 256 years after Buddha’s Nirvaza? These points, however, have been argued in so masterly a manner by Dr. Biihler in his ‘Second Notice,’ that I should be afraid of weakening his case by adding anything of my own, and must refer my readers to his ‘Second Notice.’ Allowing that latitude which, owing to the doubtful readings of MSS., and the constant neglect of odd months, we must allow in the interpretation of Buddhist chronology, Asoka is the only king we know of who could have spoken of a thirty-fourth year since the beginning of his reign and since his conversion to Buddhism. And if he calls that year, say the very last of his reign (222 B.C.), 256 after the departure of the Master, we have a right to say that as early as Asoka’s time, Buddha was believed to have died about 477 B.c. Whether the inscriptions have been accurately copied and rightly read is, however, a more serious question, and the doubts raised by Dr. Oldenberg (Mahavagga, p. xxxviii) make a new collation of the originals absolutely indispensable, before we can definitely accept Dr. Biihler’s interpretation. I cannot share Dr. Bihler’s opinion! as to the entire worthlessness of the Gaina chronology in confirming the date of Buddha’s death. If the Svetambara Gainas place the death of Mah4vira 470 before VikramAditya, i. e. 56 B.C. +470=526B.C.,and the Digambaras 605,i.e.78 A.D. deducted from 605=527 B.C., this so far confirms Dr. Biihler’s and Dr. Jacobi’s brilliant discovery that Mahavira was the same as Nigaztha N&taputta, who died at PAva during Buddha’s lifetime. Most likely 527 is too early a date, while another ' Three Edicts, p. 21; Second Notice, pp. 9, 10. 3 See Jacobi, Kalpa-sitra of Bhadrabahu, and Oldenberg, Zeitschrift der D.M.G., XXXIV, p. 749. xlii DHAMMAPADA. tradition fixing Mahavira’s death 155 years before Kandragupta’, 470 B.C., is too late. Yet they both show that the distance between Asoka (259-222 B.C.), the grandson of Kandragupta (315-291 B.C.), and the contemporaries of Buddha was by the Gainas also believed to be one of two rather than one century.
2Yet they both show that the distance between Asoka (259-222 B.C.), the grandson of Kandragupta (315-291 B.C.), and the contemporaries of Buddha was by the Gainas also believed to be one of two rather than one century. When I saw that the date of Buddha’s death, 477 B.C., which in my History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature (1859) I had myself tried to support by such arguments as were then accessible, had received so powerful a support by the discovery of the inscriptions of Sahasram, Rapnath, and Bairat, due to General Cunningham, who had himself always been an advocate of the date 477 B.C., and through their careful decipherment by Dr. Biihler, I lost no time in*testing that date once more by the Dipavamesa, that Ceylonese chronicle having lately become accessible through Dr. Oldenberg’s edition and translation?. And here I am able to say that, before having read Dr. Biihler’s Second Notice, I arrived, though by a somewhat different way, at nearly the same conclusions as those so well worked out by Dr. Biihler in his restoration of the Episcopal Succession (theravali) of the Buddhists, and therefore feel convinced that, making all such allowances as the case requires, we know now as much of early Buddhist chronology as could be known at the time of Asoka’s Council, 242 B.C. Taking the date of Buddha’s death 477 B.c. for granted, I found that Updali, who rehearsed the Vinaya at the First Council, 477 B.c., had been in orders sixty years in the twenty-fourth year of Ag@tasatru, i.e. 461 B.C., which was the sixteenth year A.B. He must therefore® have been born in 541 B.C, and he died 447 B.C., i.e. thirty years A.B., at the age of 94. This is said to have been the sixth year of Udayi, and so it is, 453 -6=447 B.C. In the year 461 B.C. Dasaka received orders from Upali, who was then 80 years of age; and when Dasaka had been 2 Oldenberg, loc. cit. Pp. 750. ® The Dipavamsa, an ancient Buddhist historical record. London, 1879. 3 Assuming twenty to be the minimum age at which a man could be ordained. INTRODUCTION. xliii in orders forty-five years (Dipavamsa IV, 41), he ordained Saunaka. This would give us 461—45=416 B.Cc., while the tenth year of Nagaddsa, 429—10, would give us 419 A.D. Later on the Dipavamsa (V, 78) allows an interval of forty years between the ordinations of Dasaka and Saunaka, which would bring the date of Saunaka’s ordination to 421 B.C., instead of 419 or 416 B.C. Here there is a fault which must be noted. Ddasaka died 461—64= 397 A.D., which is called the eighth year of Sisundga, and so it is, 40.5—8= 397 A.D. When Saunaka had been in orders forty years, i. e. 416—40= 376, Kalasoka is said to have reigned a little over ten years, i.e. 387—11=376 A.D., and in that year Saunaka ordained Siggava. He died 416—66=350 A.D., which is called the sixth year of the Ten, while in reality it is the ninth, 359—6=353 A.D. If, however, we take 419 as the year of Saunaka’s ordination, his death would fall 419—66=353 B.C.
3387—11=376 A.D., and in that year Saunaka ordained Siggava. He died 416—66=350 A.D., which is called the sixth year of the Ten, while in reality it is the ninth, 359—6=353 A.D. If, however, we take 419 as the year of Saunaka’s ordination, his death would fall 419—66=353 B.C. Siggava, when he had been in orders sixty-four years, ordained Tishya Maudgaliputra. This date 376—64=312 B.C. is called more than two years after Kandragupta’s accession, and so it very nearly is, 315—2= 313. Siggava died when he had been in orders seventy-six years, i.e. 376—76=300 A.D. This year is called the fourteenth year of Kandragupta, which it very nearly is, 315—14=301. When Tishya had been in orders sixty! years, he ordained Mahendra, 312—60=252 B.C. This is called six years after Asoka’s coronation, 259 —6=253, and so it very nearly is. He died 312—80=232 B.C., which is called the twenty-sixth year of Asoka, and so it very nearly is. 1 I take 60 (80), as given in Dipavamsa V, 95,107, instead of 66 (86), as given in Dipavamsa V, 94. xliv DHAMMAPADA. BUDDHIST PATRIARCHS, Ordination of Patri- Birth, Ordination. successor. Death. Age. archate. Upali (Generally 527 461 447 94 30 20 years (60) before Dasaka ordination.) 46! ti} 397 84 50 45 421 42 40 Saunaka » 416 376) 350 86 44 (47) 419 379 353 421 381 (40) Siggava ” 3764 3124 300 9650 (52) (64) Tishya ” gi2k 253 233. «+00 68 (60) Mahendra 273 253 ” 193 80 40 282 (284) If we test the dates of this table by the length of time assigned to each patriarchate, we find that Upali ruled thirty years, from Buddha’s death, 477 to 447; Dasaka fifty years. To Saunaka forty-four years are assigned, instead of forty-seven, owing to a fault pointed out before ; and to Siggava fifty-two years, or fifty-five’ instead of fifty. Tishya’s patriarchate is said to have lasted sixty-eight years, which agrees with previous statements. Lastly, the years of the death of the six patriarchs, as fixed according to the reigns of the kings of Magadha, agree extremely well. Upali died in the sixth year of Udayi,i.e.453—6=447B.Cc. Dasaka died in the eighth year of Sisunaga, i.e. 405—8= 397 B.C. Saunaka died in the sixth year of the Ten, i.e. 359—6= 353 B.C., showing again the difference of three years. ' The combined patriarchates of Saunaka and Siggava are given as 99 by the Dipavamsa. INTRODUCTION, xlv Siggava died in the fourteenth year of Kandragupta, i.e. 315—14= 301 B.C. Tishya died in the twenty-sixth or twenty-seventh year of Asoka, i.e. 259 —27=233 B.C.
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.
1And 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 danger of unexpected confirmations of one’s own views, yet, after carefully weighing the objections raised by Mr. Rhys Davids and Professor Pischel against Dr. Biihler’s arguments, I cannot think that they have shaken Dr. Biihler’s position. I fully admit the difficulties in the phraseology of these inscriptions: but I ask, Who could have written these inscriptions, if not Asoka? And how, if written by Asoka, can the date which they contain mean anything but 256 years after Buddha’s Nirvaza? These points, however, have been argued in so masterly a manner by Dr. Biihler in his ‘Second Notice,’ that I should be afraid of weakening his case by adding anything of my own, and must refer my readers to his ‘Second Notice.’ Allowing that latitude which, owing to the doubtful readings of MSS., and the constant neglect of odd months, we must allow in the interpretation of Buddhist chronology, Asoka is the only king we know of who could have spoken of a thirty-fourth year since the beginning of his reign and since his conversion to Buddhism. And if he calls that year, say the very last of his reign (222 B.C.), 256 after the departure of the Master, we have a right to say that as early as Asoka’s time, Buddha was believed to have died about 477 B.c. Whether the inscriptions have been accurately copied and rightly read is, however, a more serious question, and the doubts raised by Dr. Oldenberg (Mahavagga, p. xxxviii) make a new collation of the originals absolutely indispensable, before we can definitely accept Dr. Biihler’s interpretation. I cannot share Dr. Bihler’s opinion! as to the entire worthlessness of the Gaina chronology in confirming the date of Buddha’s death. If the Svetambara Gainas place the death of Mah4vira 470 before VikramAditya, i. e. 56 B.C. +470=526B.C.,and the Digambaras 605,i.e.78 A.D. deducted from 605=527 B.C., this so far confirms Dr. Biihler’s and Dr. Jacobi’s brilliant discovery that Mahavira was the same as Nigaztha N&taputta, who died at PAva during Buddha’s lifetime. Most likely 527 is too early a date, while another ' Three Edicts, p. 21; Second Notice, pp. 9, 10. 3 See Jacobi, Kalpa-sitra of Bhadrabahu, and Oldenberg, Zeitschrift der D.M.G., XXXIV, p. 749. xlii DHAMMAPADA. tradition fixing Mahavira’s death 155 years before Kandragupta’, 470 B.C., is too late. Yet they both show that the distance between Asoka (259-222 B.C.), the grandson of Kandragupta (315-291 B.C.), and the contemporaries of Buddha was by the Gainas also believed to be one of two rather than one century.
2Yet they both show that the distance between Asoka (259-222 B.C.), the grandson of Kandragupta (315-291 B.C.), and the contemporaries of Buddha was by the Gainas also believed to be one of two rather than one century. When I saw that the date of Buddha’s death, 477 B.C., which in my History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature (1859) I had myself tried to support by such arguments as were then accessible, had received so powerful a support by the discovery of the inscriptions of Sahasram, Rapnath, and Bairat, due to General Cunningham, who had himself always been an advocate of the date 477 B.C., and through their careful decipherment by Dr. Biihler, I lost no time in*testing that date once more by the Dipavamesa, that Ceylonese chronicle having lately become accessible through Dr. Oldenberg’s edition and translation?. And here I am able to say that, before having read Dr. Biihler’s Second Notice, I arrived, though by a somewhat different way, at nearly the same conclusions as those so well worked out by Dr. Biihler in his restoration of the Episcopal Succession (theravali) of the Buddhists, and therefore feel convinced that, making all such allowances as the case requires, we know now as much of early Buddhist chronology as could be known at the time of Asoka’s Council, 242 B.C. Taking the date of Buddha’s death 477 B.c. for granted, I found that Updali, who rehearsed the Vinaya at the First Council, 477 B.c., had been in orders sixty years in the twenty-fourth year of Ag@tasatru, i.e. 461 B.C., which was the sixteenth year A.B. He must therefore® have been born in 541 B.C, and he died 447 B.C., i.e. thirty years A.B., at the age of 94. This is said to have been the sixth year of Udayi, and so it is, 453 -6=447 B.C. In the year 461 B.C. Dasaka received orders from Upali, who was then 80 years of age; and when Dasaka had been 2 Oldenberg, loc. cit. Pp. 750. ® The Dipavamsa, an ancient Buddhist historical record. London, 1879. 3 Assuming twenty to be the minimum age at which a man could be ordained. INTRODUCTION. xliii in orders forty-five years (Dipavamsa IV, 41), he ordained Saunaka. This would give us 461—45=416 B.Cc., while the tenth year of Nagaddsa, 429—10, would give us 419 A.D. Later on the Dipavamsa (V, 78) allows an interval of forty years between the ordinations of Dasaka and Saunaka, which would bring the date of Saunaka’s ordination to 421 B.C., instead of 419 or 416 B.C. Here there is a fault which must be noted. Ddasaka died 461—64= 397 A.D., which is called the eighth year of Sisundga, and so it is, 40.5—8= 397 A.D. When Saunaka had been in orders forty years, i. e. 416—40= 376, Kalasoka is said to have reigned a little over ten years, i.e. 387—11=376 A.D., and in that year Saunaka ordained Siggava. He died 416—66=350 A.D., which is called the sixth year of the Ten, while in reality it is the ninth, 359—6=353 A.D. If, however, we take 419 as the year of Saunaka’s ordination, his death would fall 419—66=353 B.C.
3387—11=376 A.D., and in that year Saunaka ordained Siggava. He died 416—66=350 A.D., which is called the sixth year of the Ten, while in reality it is the ninth, 359—6=353 A.D. If, however, we take 419 as the year of Saunaka’s ordination, his death would fall 419—66=353 B.C. Siggava, when he had been in orders sixty-four years, ordained Tishya Maudgaliputra. This date 376—64=312 B.C. is called more than two years after Kandragupta’s accession, and so it very nearly is, 315—2= 313. Siggava died when he had been in orders seventy-six years, i.e. 376—76=300 A.D. This year is called the fourteenth year of Kandragupta, which it very nearly is, 315—14=301. When Tishya had been in orders sixty! years, he ordained Mahendra, 312—60=252 B.C. This is called six years after Asoka’s coronation, 259 —6=253, and so it very nearly is. He died 312—80=232 B.C., which is called the twenty-sixth year of Asoka, and so it very nearly is. 1 I take 60 (80), as given in Dipavamsa V, 95,107, instead of 66 (86), as given in Dipavamsa V, 94. xliv DHAMMAPADA. BUDDHIST PATRIARCHS, Ordination of Patri- Birth, Ordination. successor. Death. Age. archate. Upali (Generally 527 461 447 94 30 20 years (60) before Dasaka ordination.) 46! ti} 397 84 50 45 421 42 40 Saunaka » 416 376) 350 86 44 (47) 419 379 353 421 381 (40) Siggava ” 3764 3124 300 9650 (52) (64) Tishya ” gi2k 253 233. «+00 68 (60) Mahendra 273 253 ” 193 80 40 282 (284) If we test the dates of this table by the length of time assigned to each patriarchate, we find that Upali ruled thirty years, from Buddha’s death, 477 to 447; Dasaka fifty years. To Saunaka forty-four years are assigned, instead of forty-seven, owing to a fault pointed out before ; and to Siggava fifty-two years, or fifty-five’ instead of fifty. Tishya’s patriarchate is said to have lasted sixty-eight years, which agrees with previous statements. Lastly, the years of the death of the six patriarchs, as fixed according to the reigns of the kings of Magadha, agree extremely well. Upali died in the sixth year of Udayi,i.e.453—6=447B.Cc. Dasaka died in the eighth year of Sisunaga, i.e. 405—8= 397 B.C. Saunaka died in the sixth year of the Ten, i.e. 359—6= 353 B.C., showing again the difference of three years. ' The combined patriarchates of Saunaka and Siggava are given as 99 by the Dipavamsa. INTRODUCTION, xlv Siggava died in the fourteenth year of Kandragupta, i.e. 315—14= 301 B.C. Tishya died in the twenty-sixth or twenty-seventh year of Asoka, i.e. 259 —27=233 B.C.
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.