A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, so far as it illustrates the Primitive Religion of the Brahmans c8.s3.153

c8.s3.153

We may suppose that Chandragupta became king about 315, and as both the Buddhist and Brahmanic writers allow him a reign of 24 years, the reign of Bindusâra would begin 291 B.C. This Bindusâra again had according to both Brahmanic and Buddhistic authors, a long reign of either twenty-five or twenty-eight years. Taking the latter statement as the better authenticated, we find that the probable beginning of Aśoka's reign took place 263 B.C.; his inauguration 259 B.C. ; his Council either 246 or 242 B.C. At the time of Aśoka's inauguration, 218 years had elapsed since the conventional date of the death of Buddha. Hence if we translate the language of Buddhist chronology into that of Greek chronology, Buddha was really supposed to have died 477 B.C., and not 543 B.C. Again, at the time of Chandragupta's accession, 162 years were believed to have elapsed since the conventional date of Buddha's death. Hence Buddha was supposed to died 315+162=477 B.C. Or, to adopt a different line of argument, Kanishka, according to the evidence of coins,¹ must have reigned before and after the Christian era. In the Stûpa of Manikyâla, which was built by Kanishka¹, Roman coins have been found of as late a date as 33 B.C. How long before that date this Turushka or Indoscythian king may have assumed the sovereignty of India it is difficult to determine. But under him the Northern Buddhists place a new Council which was presided over by Vasumitra², and the date of which is fixed at more than 400 after Buddha’s Nirvâna.³ If we add 400 and 33, and take into account that the Council took place more than 400 years after Buddha, and that Kanishka must have reigned some years before he built his Stûpa, we find again that 477 B. C. far more likely than 543, as the conventional date of Buddha’s death. All the dates, however, before Chandragupta are to be considered only as hypothetical. The second council under Kâlâśoka is extremely problematical, and the date of Buddha’s death, as 218 before Aśoka, is worth no more than the date of Vijaya’s landing in Ceylon, fixed 218 before Devânâmpriya Tishya. Professor Lassen, in order to give an historical value to the date of 543 assigned to the death of Buddha, adds 66 years to the 22 years of the reign of the Nandas, and he quotes in support of this the authority of the Purâṇas which ascribe 88 years to the first Nanda. The Purâṇas, however, if taken in their true meaning, are entirely at variance with the Buddhist chronology before Chandragupta, and it is not allowable to use them as a corrective. As to the chronology of the Ceylonese Buddhists, so far from becoming more perfect by the addition of those sixty-six years, it would really lose all consistency. The most useful portions of that chronology are the prophecies of Buddha and others, as to the number of years intervening between certain events. All these dates would have to be surrendered if we adopted Professor Lassen's correction. The great Council would not fall 218 years after Buddha's death, Chandragupta would not come to the throne 162 years after the Nirvâṇa: Buddha, in fact, as well as his apostles, would be convicted as false prophets by their very disciples.