A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, so far as it illustrates the Primitive Religion of the Brahmans c8.s3.70

Language: English

c8.s3.70.1

This synchronism once established, it became necessary to accommodate to it, as well as possible, the rest of the legendary history of the Buddhists. It contained but few historical elements previous to Aśoka’s Council, but that council had again to be connected with the history of Ceylon. Aśoka was the cotemporary of Devânâmpriya Tishya, King of Ceylon. This king adopted Buddhism, and made it, like Aśoka, the state religion of the island. Now, according to the traditional chronology of Ceylon, Devânâmpriya Tishya came to the throne 236 years after the landing of Vijaya¹, and he reigned forty years (307—267 B.C.) He was intimately connected with Aśoka, as we shall see, and it was necessary that the same interval which in the historical traditions of Ceylon separated Devânâmpriya Tishya from Vijaya should separate Aśoka from Buddha. This was achieved in the following manner: One Aśoka is supposed to have come to the throne ninety years after Buddha, and a council (the second, as it is called) is supposed to have taken place in the tenth year of his reign, or just one hundred years after Buddha. At that second council a prophecy was uttered that in 118 years a calamity would befall the Buddhist religion. This refers to the reign of the so-called second Aśoka, who was at first a great enemy to religion.

c8.s3.70.2

Now the first Aśoka is represented to have reigned 18 years after the Council (100 anno Buddhæ), and if we cast up these 118 years, the 22 years of Aśoka's sons, the 22 years of the Nine, the 24 years¹ of Chandragupta, the 28 years of Binduśara, and the 4 years which elapsed before Aśoka's inauguration², we find that Aśoka's inauguration would fall just 118 years after the second Council, 218 years after Buddha, or 325 B. C. The Council of this real Aśoka was held in the 17th year of his reign, or 235 after Buddha. Mahendra, the son of Aśoka, proceeded to Ceylon in the next year, or 236 years after Buddha; and in this manner the arrival of Mahendra in Ceylon, and the inauguration of Devânâmpriya Tishya as King of Ceylon, are brought together in the same year. It is true that in order to achieve this, it has become necessary to add a first Aśoka³, of whom the Northern Buddhists know nothing; it has become necessary to admit another Moggaliputto, and another Council, all equally unknown except in the traditional chronology of Ceylon. The Northern Buddhists know but one Aśoka, the grandson of Chandragupta; they know but one Council, besides the Assembly following immediately on the death of Buddha, viz. the Council of Pāṭaliputra under Dharmāśoka, and this they place 110 years after Buddha’s Nirvāṇa.¹ Piṇḍola, a contemporary of of Buddha, was seen as an old man by Aśoka. But who was to contradict the Ceylonese historians?

c8.s3.70.3

They possessed, what the Buddhists of Magadha did not possess, a history of their island and their sovereigns. They valued historical chronology for its own sake, forming an exception in this respect to all other nations of India. They were a colony, and like most colonies, they valued the traditions of the past. The Buddhists of Magadha, as far as we are able to judge, preserved but a few historical recollections, frequently in the form of prophecies, which they afterwards forced into the loose frame of the Brahmanic chronology. The Buddhists of Ceylon did not borrow the outlines of their history either from the Brahmans or from the Buddhists of Magadha; and this is a point which has never been sufficiently considered. Their outlines of history were not constructed originally in order to hold the Buddhist traditions of the North. They may have been slightly modified, so as to avoid glaring inconsistencies between the profane history of Ceylon and the sacred history of Buddhism. But there is evidence to show that, on the other hand, the historical legends of Magadha had to yield much more considerably,—the framers of the final chronology finding it impossible to ignore the annals of their island and the reigns of their ancient half-fabulous kings. The chronology of the Mahâvańśa is a compromise between the chronology of Ceylon and that of Magadha, but the latter was the more pliant of the two.

c8.s3.70.4

There is nothing to prove that the *terminus à quo* of the chronology of Ceylon,—the date of Vijaya’s landing—was borrowed from the North. There were Buddhist traditions connecting Vijaya’s landing with the death of Buddha, but the date 543 B. C. is never found in the sacred chronology of Buddhism, before it was borrowed from the profane chronology of Ceylon. There were similar, and, as it would seem, better founded traditions, connecting Devânâmpriya Tishya with the great Aśoka; but the date of Devânâmpriya Tishya was not determined by the date of the great Aśoka, nor was the date of Aśoka’s Council, as 110 after Buddha, accepted in Ceylon. On the contrary, the interval between Vijaya and Devânâmpriya Tishya was allowed to remain as it stood in the Ceylonese annals, and the Buddhist traditions were stretched in order to suit that interval. An intermediate Aśoka and an intermediate Council were admitted, which were unknown to the Northern Buddhists. The prophecy that Nâgârjuna should live 400 years after Buddha¹, had been altered by the Chinese so as to suit their chronology. They placed him 800 years after Buddha. In like manner the Ceylonese Buddhists, having fixed Buddha's death at 543 B.C., changed the traditional date of Nâgârjuna from 400 to 500 after Buddha.¹ All this is constructive chronology, and whether we follow the Chinese or Ceylonese date of Buddha, we must always remember that in both the *terminus à quo* is purely hypothetical.

c8.s3.70.5

This does not interfere with the correctness of minor details, such as the number of years assigned to each king, and in particular the chronological distance between certain events. These may have formed part of popular tradition, long before any system of chronology was established. A very old man, Piṇḍola, was represented in a popular legend to have been a contemporary both of Buddha and of Dharmâśoka. Hence the interval between the founder and the royal patron of Buddhism would naturally be fixed at about 100 years. This is a tradition which may be used for historical purposes. Again, when we see that a date like that of Nâgârjuna fixed in the North of India at 400 after Buddha, is altered to 800 and 500, so as to suit the requirements of two different systems of chronology, we may feel inclined to look upon the unsystematic date as the most plausible. But in order to make use of such indications we must first of all establish a που στῶ, and this can only be found in Chandragupta. Everything in Indian chronology depends on the date of Chandragupta. Chandragupta was the grandfather of Aśoka, and the contemporary of Seleucus Nicator. Now, according to Chinese chronology, Aśoka would have lived, to waive minor differences, 850 or 750 B.C., according to Ceylonese chronology, 315 B.C.

c8.s3.70.6

Either of these dates is impossible, because it does not agree with the chronology of Greece, and hence both the Chinese and Ceylonese dates of Buddha's death must be given up as equally valueless for historical calculations.