Book of Indian Eras, with Tables for Calculating Indian Dates c11: VIII.—Era of the Seleukidæ

Book of Indian Eras, with Tables for Calculating Indian Dates c11

Language: English

VIII.—Era of the Seleukidæ

c11.1

The initial point of the Seleukidan era has been fixed by Fynes Clinton to the 1st of October 312 B.C., in the beginning of Olympiad XVII, 1.* According to Ulugh Beg this era began 12 years after the death of Alexander, and 340,700 days before the Hijra of Muhammad, 16th July A.D. 622. Now 311 complete years B.C. plus 621 complete years A.D. = 932 Julian years, contain 340,414 days, which deducted from 340,700 leave 286 days to be accounted for. As the Hijra era dates from 16th July there are 196 days in A.D. 622, which leave only 90 days prior to the beginning of B.C. 311; so that, according to Ulugh Beg, the Seleukidan era must have begun on the 3rd of October B.C. 312. The other datum of 12 years after the death of Alexander does not refer to the actual date of Alexander's death, but to the initial day of the 425th year of Nabonasar, 12th November 324 B.C., in which year Alexander died. Twelve years later places the beginning of the Seleukidan era near the end of the year 312 B.C.

c11.2

This era dates from the defeat of Nikanor, the general of Antigonus, by Seleukus, who thus became master of Babylon in Olympiad XVII, I. The initial date of the era in B.C. 312 is also established by the dates on several coins, of which one of Hadrian bears the date HKY, and another of Caracalla bears the date HKΦ. As Hadrian began to reign on the 11th August 117 A.D., and Caracalla on the 8th April 217 A.D., the first year of the era referred to must have included the dates of 8th April and 11th of August 311 B.C.†

c11.3

The names of the months were the same as those of the Macedonian Calendar. But as the Seleukidan year began in October, the first month must have been Hyperberetæus. The order of the Macedonian months has been gathered by Clinton from Josephus and Suidas, Balla Deva. Two of his inscriptions are dated in the years 51 and 74 of the Lakshmana Sena era, or in A. D. 1157 and 1180. A third inscription, which is dated in the year 1813 of the *Parinirvritte* of Bhagavata, shows that the time the Nirvâna was believed to have occurred, was about 656 to 633 B.C.

c11.4

∗ Fasti Hellenici, III, p. 311. † Ordo Sæclorum, by Henry Browne, pp. 487 and 488. See also Fasti Hellenici, III, p. 373.

c11.5

But these extravagant periods are disproved by Brahmanical as well as by Buddhist records, after making the necessary correction for the dates of Chandra Gupta and Asoka.

c11.6

The following is the account given in the Brahmanical Purânas:—

c11.7

c11.8

Now the period stated in all the Buddhist records is 214 years, the difference of nearly 100 years, being in the reigns between Ajâta Satru and Chandra Gupta. In favour of the Buddhist records I may remark that Buddhaghosha, "the Brahman youth, born in the neighbourhood of the terrace of the Great Bo-tree, . . . who had achieved the knowledge of the three Vedas,"* must have been cognizant of the northern chronology when he translated the Singhalese *Attha-katha*, in which he has adopted the same dates as are found in the Mahawansa and Dipawansa. Admitting the correctness of this suggestion, it follows that Buddhaghosha either gave a preference to the Singhalese chronology, or that it did not differ from the northern chronology in his time, that is in A.D. 400. But whatever may be the true explanation of the difference, the fact remains that the Buddhists are unanimous in placing the Nirvâna of Buddha 214 years prior to the accession of Asoka. Accepting this as the most probable account of the interval, we obtain for the Nirvâna the corrected date of 264 + 214 = 478 B.C., instead of 544 B.C., being a difference of 66 years.

c11.9

∗ Mahawansa.

c11.10

A novel theory has lately been put forward to account for the discrepancy by referring the Nirvâna to the time of Buddha’s attainment of Buddhahood under the sacred tree. As this took place when he was 29 + 6 = 35 years old, the difference is only 80 - 35 = 45 years, instead of 66 years. Mr. Curter, who proposes this explanation, appears to think that Sâkya obtained Buddhahood at 29 years of age. But he only left his home at that age, and had to sit for six years under the Bodhi tree at Uruvilwa before he attained Buddhahood.* The Buddhavansa (which he quotes) states vaguely that Gotama did not live to 100 years.

c11.11

Mr. Curter’s figures are— Gotama’s birth ... ... ... 572 B.C. Nirvâna at 29th year = ... ... 543 ,, Death according to the Inscriptions ... 483 ,,

c11.12

I must say that I remain quite unconvinced. The period that requires correction is not that between Buddha and Asoka, but the still later period of the impossible reigns of Mutasiwo and his sons for 162 years, or exactly 81 years to one generation. If the Buddhist dates of Chandra Gupta and Asoka can be corrected to the extent of 66 years, the date of Buddha’s Nirvâna must be subject to the same correction, as the period between them does not seem to be capable of extension. On the contrary, the Northern Buddhists seem to have usually curtailed it to 100 years as stated by Hwen Thsang, as well as in the Asoka Avadâna.† A single northern work, the Avadâna Sataka, extends the period between the Nirvâna and Asoka to 200 years.

c11.13

† See Burnouf.

c11.14

For these reasons I retain the year 544 B.C. as the accepted date of Buddha’s Nirvâna, according to the Buddhist chronology of Ceylon and Burma. At the same time I think that there must certainly be an error in this date to the extent of about 66 years as shown by the subsequent dates of Chandra Gupta and Asoka.

c11.15

∗ Academy, 19th March 1881, and Indian Antiquary; May 1881, p. 153.