A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, so far as it illustrates the Primitive Religion of the Brahmans c8.s3.70.4

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.