Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c12.s6: The Date of Gosāla's Death

History and Doctrines of the Ājīvikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c12.s6

Language
English

The Date of Gosāla's Death

c12.s6.1

Certain indications in the *Bhagavatī Sūtra*, taken together with references elsewhere in the Jaina canon and in the Buddhist scriptures, may be used tentatively to fit the year of Gosāla's death into a framework provided by those of his great contemporaries, Buddha and Mahāvīra.

c12.s6.2

As we have seen ¹ Gosāla is said to have lived as an ascetic for twenty-four years, the first six of which were spent with Mahāvīra, and the last sixteen as a pseudo-*jina* at Sāvatthi. It seems that the whole of the twenty-four year period occurred during the lifetime of his two greater rivals.

c12.s6.3

¹ V. supra, pp. 50-51.

c12.s6.4

Reliable synchronisms of the events of Gosāla’s life with that of the Buddha do not exist. The Sāmañña-phala Sutta depicts him, together with the other five heretical teachers, as being alive during the reign of King Ajātasattu of Magadha,¹ but this statement is of little value as a synchronism, especially when it is remembered that all six are referred to in the Milinda Pañha as the contemporaries of King Menander of Sākala.² In the Saṃyutta Nikāya³ King Bimbisāra, Ajātasattu’s father and predecessor, is reported to have told the Buddha that the six heretics were well established in their status as teachers,⁴ while the Buddha was young and had but recently become a mendicant.⁵ This suggests that Makkhali Gosāla was considerably older than the Buddha, but no value can be placed on the statement, for the heretics seem here obviously introduced as representatives of older and well-established philosophic schools, and not as individuals.

c12.s6.5

¹ V. supra, pp. 11–12.

c12.s6.6

² V. supra, p. 21.

c12.s6.7

³ Sam. i, p. 68.

c12.s6.8

⁴ Saṅghino gaṇino ñātā yassassino titthakārā.

c12.s6.9

⁵ Daharo c’ eva jātiyā, navo ca pabbajāyā.

c12.s6.10

Two important statements in the Bhagavatī Sūtra itself do, however, give a clue to the approximate date of Makkhali Gosāla’s death. These are, firstly, Mahāvīra’s prophecy that he would survive the death of Gosāla by sixteen or sixteen and a half years. This statement was made twice, the first time to Gosāla himself after the magic duel at the Koṭṭhaga caitya,⁶ when the duration of Mahāvīra’s survival of Gosāla is given as sixteen years; and again soon after the death of Gosāla, when Mahāvīra was taken ill at the town of Meṇḍhiyagāma.⁷ Remembering Gosāla’s curse, the disciple Sīha feared that his master would die within six months as a result of the magic duel, but Mahāvīra calmed his fears, and stated that he had yet sixteen and a half years to live on earth as a jina. Mahāvīra quickly recovered, after eating the flesh of a cockerel killed by a cat.

c12.s6.11

⁶ V. supra, p. 60

c12.s6.12

⁷ Bh. Sū. xv, sū. 557, fols. 685–6.

c12.s6.13

At a distance of over two thousand years the discrepancy of six months in the two statements is not very significant, but of the two the second seems the more probably accurate. It may be suggested that the extra half-year is the insertion of a meticulous copyist who had access to early records now lost to us and desired greater accuracy for Mahāvīra’s forecast.

c12.s6.14

A second point of synchronism is contained in the list of the eight finalities proclaimed by Gosāla in his last illness.¹ These are :—
1. The last drink (*carime pāṇe*).
2. The last song (*carime geye*).
3. The last dance (*carime naṭṭe*).
4. The last greeting (*carime aṅjalikamme*).
5. The last great stormcloud (*carime pokkhala-saṃvaṭṭaë mahāmehe*).
6. The last sprinkling scent-elephant (*carime seyaṇaë gandha-hatthī*).
7. The last battle with large stones (*carime mahāsilākaṇṭaë saṅgāme*).
8. The twenty-fourth and last *tīrthaṅkara* of this *Avasarpiṇī* (*imīse Osappiṇīë caüvīsāë titthakarāṇaṃ carime titthakare*), who was Gosāla himself.

c12.s6.15

¹ *Bh. Sū.* xv, *sū.* 554, fol. 679. V. supra, pp. 62-63.

c12.s6.16

Abhayadeva explains three of these eight finalities as having been laid down by Gosāla to impress his followers with the cataclysmic quality of his own impending death²; the first four, on the other hand, were put forward with the even more reprehensible motive of excusing his own delirious conduct in singing, dancing, drinking muddy water, and saluting Hālāhalā.³ The eighth and last was, of course, Gosāla himself. All of them were supposed inevitably to occur at a *jina's nirvāṇa*, according to Ājīvika teaching.

c12.s6.17

² *Puṣkala-saṃvarttak'-ādīni tu trīṇi bāhyāni prākṛt'-ānupayoge 'pi carama-sāmā... fol. 684.

c12.s6.18

³ ... Etāni kila nirvāṇa-kāle jinasy' āvaśyam-bhāvin' iti n' asty eteṣu doṣa ity asya ... avadya- ... anti. Abhayadeva to *Bh. Sū.*, fols. 683-4.

c12.s6.19

This very plausible explanation of the strange list is accepted with modifications by Hoernle. "The *raison d'être* of this curious doctrine," he writes ". . . is that the dubious death of their master was felt by his disciples to require investment with some kind of rehabilitating glamour."⁴

c12.s6.20

⁴ V. supra, pp. 61-62.

c12.s6.21

The first four of the eight finalities were obviously suggested by the behaviour of Gosāla in his delirium.⁵ For the sixth and seventh Hoernle has found striking parallels.⁶ The *Nirayāvalikā*⁷ contains the account of a splendid rutting elephant called "Sprinkler" (Seyaṇaë), because he was in the habit of sprinkling the ladies of the Magadhan court with water from his trunk while they were bathing. This elephant, together with a priceless necklace, was given by King Seṇiya (Bimbisāra of the Buddhist texts), to his younger son Vehalla.

c12.s6.22

⁵ 7.

c12.s6.23

⁶ Gopani and Chokshi edn., pp. 19 ff.

c12.s6.24

On the accession of Prince Kūṇiya (Ajātasattu), Seṇiya’s wicked son, the new king desired this fine elephant and the necklace. Inspired by his covetous wife Paümavaï, Kūṇiya demanded the treasures of Vehalla, who, disinclined to give them up and fearful for his life, fled with them to the court of his maternal uncle, Ceḍaga, who was chieftain of Vesālī, and head of the clan of the Licchavis, the chief element of the Vajjian confederacy of the Pāli texts. After some negotiation war broke out between Magadha and the Licchavis over the two treasures, and a great battle took place. The outcome is not clearly stated in the text, but the battle is said to have been very fiercely fought, and in it a prince Kāla was killed by Ceḍaga and the forces under his command were completely routed. It would seem therefore that all did not go well for the Magadhan invaders. The battle is referred to as Rahamusala, and is said to have taken place during the lifetime of Mahāvīra, who, according to the text, knew telepathically of the death of the prince Kāla. These events seem certainly to be those which inspired the sixth and seventh of the finalities, the sprinkling scent elephant and the battle with great stones.

c12.s6.25

Although Hoernle seems to have been unaware of the fact, the story of Kūṇiya’s war with the Licchavis is told elsewhere in Jaina literature. The *Bhagavatī Sūtra*¹ gives an account of the campaign, with significant differences of detail. Here two battles are fought, called *Mahāsilākaṇṭaë* and *Rahamusale* respectively. Kūṇiya is said to have gone out to the *Mahāsilākaṇṭaë* battle only after the engagement had commenced, when he heard that the fortunes of his armies were declining. Ceḍaga, a mighty archer, shot Kūṇiya’s ten brothers on ten successive days, and his success seemed assured until, on the eleventh day, the god Indra presented Kūṇiya with a great war-engine, which struck down the Licchavis with great stones. The second defeat of Ceḍaga, at the *Rahamusala* battle, took place in similar circumstances, after Kūṇiya had received from Camara, the Indra of the Asuras, a wonderful chariot armed with a great club, which worked havoc among the Licchavis.

c12.s6.26

¹ *Bh. Sū. vii, sū. 299 ff., pp. 576 ff.*

c12.s6.27

Jinadāsa's *Āvaśyaka Cūrṇi*¹ continues the story. The *gaṇarājas*, or chieftains of the confederate clans, demoralized by the two defeats, abandoned Ceḍaga and returned to their own cities. Ceḍaga retreated on Vesālī, and prepared for a siege. The city held out for twelve years, when it was betrayed by the treachery of the ascetic Kūlavālaya, the force of whose religious merit had formerly protected it. He was won over by a beautiful prostitute in the employ of Kūṇiya, and persuaded to break his vows and to betray the city. Ceḍaga committed suicide by drowning, and the Licchavis emigrated to Nepal.²

c12.s6.28

¹ *Āvaśyaka Cūrṇi*, vol. ii, pp. 172 ff.

c12.s6.29

² The elliptical account of the *Āvaśyaka Cūrṇi* is expanded in a *bhāṣya* to the *Uttarādhyayana Sūtra*, which is not available, but is paraphrased in *Abhidhāna Rājendra*, vol. iii, s.v. Kūlavālaya.

c12.s6.30

Thus we have two synchronisms for the date of Gosāla's death, the first being the tradition of its occurence sixteen and a half years before that of Mahāvīra, and the second that of its taking place during the war between Magadha and Vesālī in the reign of Ajātasattu-Kūṇiya. Of the two the latter seems the more reliable. It is probable that the author of the *Bhagavatī* made use of an authentic Ājīvika tradition, for the occurrence of the great battle and the death of their leader in the same year would make a great impression upon Gosāla's followers, and the memory of the synchronism might well be accurately preserved. On the other hand the tradition of the sixteen and a half years between the deaths of the two teachers is of a type more easily corrupted. The author of the *Bhagavatī* seems to have had a predilection for certain numbers. For instance the number six occurs in this chapter in various contexts. Thus Gosāla lives with Mahāvīra for six years,³ he performs a six months' penance,⁴ he confers with the six *disācaras*,⁵ he proclaims the six inevitables,⁶ he threatens Mahāvīra with death in six months' time.⁷ A period of sixteen years has already been introduced once into the story, when it is stated that Gosāla spent sixteen years in the pottery at Sāvatthi as leader of the Ājīvika order,¹ and, as will be shown, certain evidence indicates that Mahāvīra did not survive Gosāla by so long a period.² Although this evidence is inconclusive, and although we accept the tradition of the sixteen years between the deaths of the two men as a working hypothesis, the possibility must be recognized that the author of the *Bhagavatī* may have introduced the period of sixteen or sixteen and a half years into his account of Mahāvīra’s prophecy with his former statement in view. It would indeed be an edifying act of cosmic justice if Mahāvīra, threatened with rapid death by Gosāla, were portrayed as surviving his adversary by the length of the latter’s career as a false prophet. In our efforts to fix the date of Gosāla’s death we must therefore give the greatest credence to the synchronism of this event with the war between Magadha and Vesālī, and our first efforts must be towards settling the approximate date of the war.

c12.s6.31

³ V. supra, p. 40.

c12.s6.32

⁴ V. supra, p. 50.

c12.s6.33

⁵ V. supra, p. 56 ff.

c12.s6.34

⁶ V. supra, ibid.

c12.s6.35

⁷ V. supra, p. 60.

c12.s6.36

¹ V. supra, p. 32,

c12.s6.37

² V. infra, p. 75.

c12.s6.38

Dr. H. C. Raychaudhuri³ has identified the war of the *Nirayāvalikā Sūtra* with that referred to in the Pāli scriptures as having taken place soon after the Buddha’s death. The account of the preparations for this war is to be found in the *Mahāparinibbāna Sutta*, and that of the war itself in Buddhaghosa’s commentary thereon. Much of the story is therefore contained in a comparatively late source, but it must be remembered that Buddhaghosa was himself a Magadhan, and may have had access to trustworthy records or traditions about the earlier history of his own country.

c12.s6.39

³ PHAI. pp. 171 ff.

c12.s6.40

According to the Pāli record the war is said to have arisen, not over a wonderful elephant, but over an unnamed river-port (*Gaṅgāyam ekam paṭṭana-gāmam*),⁴ half of which was in Magadhan territory and half in that of the Licchavis. There, from the foot of a mountain, descended a very costly fragrant material.⁵ When King Ajātasattu went to claim this strange substance he found that the Licchavis had preceded him, and had removed it; he therefore planned the war in order to gain possession of the scent-producing mountain. Plans seem to have been laid very carefully; according to the *Mahā-parinibbāna Sutta* Ajātasattu’s first step was to send the minister Vassakāra to the Buddha, to inquire as to the probable outcome of an immediate attack.¹ Vassakāra’s visit is said to have been made while the Buddha was at Gijjhakūṭa near Rājagaha, the Magadhan capital, just before his journey northwards, at the end of which he died. According to Buddhaghosa it was on the Buddha’s advice that Ajātasattu decided not to wage immediate war on the Vajjis, but to bide his time.² The *Sutta* further states that the Buddha, as he proceeded northwards, once more met the minister Vassakāra, who, together with another minister named Sunīdha, was supervising the erection of a fort at Pāṭaligāma,³ and that he correctly prophesied the future greatness of the city that would arise on the site.

c12.s6.41

⁴ Sum. Vil. ii, p. 516.

c12.s6.42

⁵ Tatr’ āpi ca pabbata-pādato mahaggham gandhabhaṇḍam otarati. Sum. Vil., loc. cit.

c12.s6.43

¹ *Dīgha* ii, pp. 72 ff.

c12.s6.44

² *Sum. Vil.* ii, p. 522.

c12.s6.45

³ *Sunīdha-Vassakārā* ... *Pāṭaligāme nagaram māpenti*

c12.s6.46

Buddhaghosa completes the story by stating that Ajātasattu, not confident of his ability to overcome the Vajjis by force, sent the unscrupulous Vassakāra, in the guise of a refugee, to sow dissension among the Licchavi clansmen. Three years were spent by Vassakāra in preparing the ground for Ajātasattu’s invasion, at the end of which period the latter crossed the Ganges and occupied Vesālī with little opposition.⁴

c12.s6.47

If the tradition is accurate Vassakāra’s visit to the Buddha must have taken place within a year of the latter’s death. Three years were spent in preparing the ground for the invasion, which must therefore have occurred some two years or more after the death of the Buddha. If we allow a few months to cover the duration of the actual campaign, and the time taken for the news of the war to reach Sāvatthi, and if we accept Raychaudhuri’s equation of the Pāli and Jaina accounts, we may place the death of Gosāla approximately three years after that of the Buddha.

c12.s6.48

On a careful examination of the two stories, however, it seems by no means certain that they refer to the same campaign. The *gandha-hatthī* of the Jaina account reminds the reader of the *gandha-bhaṇḍam* of the Pāli and we may suggest that the author of the *Nirayāvalikā* and Buddhaghosa both worked on the same tradition, but that one of the two, probably the latter, had received it in a garbled form. The obscure perfumed material of the Pāli account is less plausible than the tame elephant of the *Nirayāvalikā*, and the latter therefore seems more reliable in this particular. The two stories agree on the break-up of the confederation, and on the betrayal of Vesāli by an agent of Magadha. Otherwise they have little in common.

c12.s6.49

In the Jaina story the war is said to have taken place at some unspecified time after the self-inflicted death of the imprisoned King Seṇiya. No definite statement is given of the time which elapsed between the death of Seṇiya and the war, but between the two events there occurred the repentance of King Kūṇiya (Ajātasattu), the funeral ceremonies of his father, and the removal of the court from Rājagṛha to Campā. Although the interval does not appear to have been very great it may have lasted for one or two years. This probability is strengthened by the Buddhist account of a war with Kosala soon after Ajātasattu’s accession.¹ In the Buddhist story the visit of Vassakāra which initiated Ajātasattu’s schemes against the Vajjis and was the first in a chain of events culminating in the Buddha’s death, must have taken place at least six or seven years after the death of Bimbisāra-Seṇiya, since the *Mahāvaṃsa* states that the Buddha’s *nirvāṇa* occurred in the eighth year of the reign of Ajātasattu-Kūṇiya.²

c12.s6.50

¹ *PHAI.* p. 170.

c12.s6.51

² *Ajātasattuno vasse aṭṭhame muni nibbuto.* *Mahāvaṃsa* ii, 32, p. 15.

c12.s6.52

The accounts of the progress of the war in the two stories are also discrepant. The *Nirayāvalikā* tells of a fierce battle in which at least part of Ajātasattu-Kūṇiya’s forces was defeated by Ceḍaga.³ The other Jaina accounts speak of protracted warfare. The Pāli story, on the other hand, makes no mention of any severe fighting, but suggests that the resistance of the Vajjis was slight, since they had been previously weakened by the intrigues of Vassakāra.⁴ Yet the building of the fort at Pāṭaligāma suggests not that Ajātasattu-Kūṇiya contemplated the invasion of the territory of a comparatively weak enemy, but that he was himself expecting invasion; this indeed is explicitly stated to be the motive in fortifying the village.⁵

c12.s6.53

³ V. supra, p. 69.

c12.s6.54

⁴ V. supra, p. 72.

c12.s6.55

⁵ *Vajjīnaṃ paṭibāhāya.* *Dīgha* ii, p. 86.

c12.s6.56

The similarities and differences in the two accounts, if taken together, indicate that the war was a protracted one and had at least two phases, which are suggested by the Jaina tradition of two great battles, and of the lengthy siege of Vesālī.

c12.s6.57

In the first, which took place soon after the accession of Ajātasattu-Kūniya, and with which the Jaina tradition of the elephant is connected, the Magadhan invasion was frustrated, and it would even seem that Magadha itself was in danger of a counter-invasion from the Vajjis. In the second phase of the war it was decided favourably to Ajātasattu through the intrigues of Vassakāra, some two or three years after the death of the Buddha. On the strength of the Jaina story, it may well be that the final capture of Vesālī did not take place until an even later date.

c12.s6.58

If we accept c. 483 B.C. as the date of the Buddha’s *nirvāṇa*,¹ on the basis of the *Mahāvaṃsa* synchronism the accession of Ajātasattu must have occurred in the year c. 491 B.C., and his second campaign against the Vajjis c. 481-480 B.C. The first campaign, soon after which the death of Gosāla occurred, must have taken place at some time between the date of Ajātasattu’s accession and the year preceding the Buddha’s death. We suggest that the first campaign occurred c. 485 B.C., and the death of Gosāla in that year, or in 484 B.C., if we allow a year for the news of the “Battle of Great Stones” to spread to Sāvatthi and to become fixed in the popular consciousness. On the strength of the *Bhagavatī* statement that Mahāvīra survived Gosāla for sixteen and a half years,² this date would place that of Mahāvīra’s death in 468-467 B.C. which agrees with the date suggested by Jacobi on the basis of Hemacandra’s *Pariśiṣṭa-parvan*,³ and supported by Charpentier.⁴ Whatever our interpretation of the discrepant traditions, however, it seems clear that the death of Gosāla was not far removed in time from that of the Buddha.

c12.s6.59

¹ De la Vallée Poussin (*Indo-européens et Indo-iraniens*, pp. 238 ff.) outlines various theories at some length. With de la Vallée Poussin I provisionally support Geiger’s date (*Mahāvaṃsa* translation, p. xxviii), which is consistent with my general chronological scheme.

c12.s6.60

² V. supra, p. 67.

c12.s6.61

³ *The Kalpasūtra of Bhadrabāhu*, p. 8.

c12.s6.62

⁴ *CHI.* i, p. 156.

c12.s6.63

There are two difficulties at least in the acceptance of the above theory. The first is a statement in the *Kalpa Sūtra* to the effect that the kings of the Licchavis instituted a festival in memory of Mahāvīra’s *nirvāṇa*.¹ This implies that they were still influential at the time of his death, and could not then have been completely overthrown by Ajātasattu-Kūṇiya. Yet the latter is said to have threatened to root out, destroy, and utterly ruin the Vajjis.² We must assume that Ajātasattu did not carry out his threats, but that the chiefs of the Vajjis were merely reduced to subordination, and allowed a degree of local autonomy. The marriage of Candra Gupta I to the Licchavi princess Kumāradevī,³ and the rise of a Licchavi dynasty in Nepal,⁴ indicate that the chief clan of the Vajjian Confederacy retained its individuality for some eight hundred years after the war with Ajātasattu.

c12.s6.64

¹ *Kalpa Sūtra*, sū. 123. *SBE*. xxii, p. 266.

c12.s6.65

² *Dīgha* ii, pp. 72–3.

c12.s6.66

³ *PHAI*. p. 445. De la Vallée Poussin, *Dynasties* . . ., pp. 33–5.

c12.s6.67

⁴ De la Vallée Poussin, *Dynasties* . . ., p. 173.

c12.s6.68

More serious is the fact that the Pāli scriptures record the death of Mahāvīra or Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta as taking place at Pāvā during the Buddha’s lifetime, and as being accompanied by serious confusion and quarrelling among his supporters. The event was reported to the Buddha by the novice Cuṇḍa, who expressed the hope that on the death of the Buddha similar quarrels would not arise in his order.⁵ This fact indicates that Mahāvīra’s death was thought of as having taken place towards the end of the Buddha’s life, when the Buddhist *bhikkhus* were very concerned about the future of the community on the death of its founder. We suggest that the Pāli record may not in fact refer to the death of Mahāvīra at Pāvā, but to that of Gosāla at Sāvatthi, which the *Bhagavatī Sūtra* also mentions as having been accompanied by quarrelling and confusion.⁶ At a later date, when the chief rival of Buddhism was no longer Ājīvikism but Jainism, the name may have been altered to add to the significance of the account.

c12.s6.69

⁵ *Majjh*. ii, pp. 243 ff.

c12.s6.70

⁶ V. supra, pp. 58 ff.

c12.s6.71

A further objection might be raised that the Śvetāmbara Jaina tradition places the date of Mahāvīra’s *nirvāṇa* in the year 470 before Vikrama, or 528 B.C., while the Digambara traditional date is even earlier—the impossible year of 605 before Vikrama.⁷ The wide divergence of the two traditions tends to make even the more plausible date suspect. It is to be noted that the Sinhalese tradition of the Buddha’s *nirvāṇa* occurring in 544 B.C. is almost certainly some sixty years too early.¹ But the Buddhist and Jaina traditions taken together confirm Jacobi’s contention that the Buddha predeceased Mahāvīra by about sixteen years.²

c12.s6.72

⁷ *PHAI*. p. 173, n.; *CHI*. i, p. 155.

c12.s6.73

¹ De la Vallée Poussin, *Indo-européens*, p. 240.

c12.s6.74

² *Ibid.*, p. 241.

c12.s6.75

Yet another argument against the theory that Mahāvīra predeceased the Buddha may be derived from the account of the war between Magadha and the Licchavis in the *Nirayāvalikā Sūtra*. Mahāvīra was alive at the time, and in contact with the Magadhan court. If we reject the Jaina tradition of his death sixteen and a half years after that of Gosāla, and accept the Buddhist record of its occurrence before that of the Buddha, we must assume that he too died very shortly after the first campaign of Ajātasattu-Kuṇiya. This must have occurred at some time between 491 and 484 B.C., on the basis of our calculations, which are founded on the assumption that the Buddha died in 483 B.C.³ Now Mahāvīra was seventy-two years old at the time of his death, and must have been at least in his late sixties at the time of the war, if we assume that he predeceased the Buddha. But Ceḍaga, the chieftain of the Licchavis, was his maternal uncle, and therefore was probably considerably older than Mahāvīra. Although he was thus a very old man, on the hypothesis of Mahāvīra’s advanced age at the time, he is yet described as leading the Licchavi forces in battle and taking a full part in the campaign. Moreover, according to Jinadāsa, he survived the twelve-year siege of Vesāli which followed the battle. Such elderly leadership is by no means impossible, but at least very improbable, and points to an inaccuracy in one or other of the stories.

c12.s6.76

³ *Ibid.*, p. 242; *Das.* ii, p. 111, n.

c12.s6.77

Hoernle has made two attempts to fix the date of Gosāla’s death. In the first he suggests 483 B.C., arrived at by counting back sixteen years from Jacobi’s date for Mahāvīra’s *nirvāṇa*.⁴ His second and revised estimate involves more complicated calculations.⁵ He accepts 482 B.C. as the “practically certain” date of the Buddha’s *nirvāṇa*. The father and predecessor of Ajātasattu, King Bimbisāra, was murdered by his son eight years before the *nirvāṇa*, or in 490 B.C. Hoernle believes that for some years before this Ajātaśattu was *de facto* ruler, and that the war took place not in the year of his legal, but of his *de facto* accession, which cannot have been long before the murder of Bimbisāra. Jacobi's theory of the later date of Mahāvīra's death he now rejects, in order to devise a chronological scheme according to which Mahāvīra may predecease the Buddha; but the *Bhagavatī* tradition of the sixteen years' interval between the deaths of Mahāvīra and Gosāla he accepts without question. He therefore suggests 484 B.C. for the death of Mahāvīra and 500 B.C. for that of Gosāla, and for the war and the *de facto* accession of Ajātaśattu.

c12.s6.78

⁴ *ERE.* i, pp. 260–1.

c12.s6.79

Hoernle's second calculation has the one advantage that it allows the acceptance of the Buddhist tradition of Mahāvīra's death being prior to that of the Buddha. For the sake of the acceptance of this one story other statements equally probable have been rejected. The *Mahā-parinibbāna Sutta's* record, that preparations for a campaign against the Vajjis were made in the last year of the Buddha's life, is not brought into relation with the chronological scheme. Hemacandra's statement that the *nirvāna* of Mahāvīra occurred 155 years before the accession of Candragupta Maurya,¹ which the Jaina tradition places in 313 B.C.,² is rejected.

c12.s6.80

¹ *Pariśiṣṭaparvan* viii, 341.

c12.s6.81

² *CHI.* i, p. 164.

c12.s6.82

Hoernle's interpretation of the chronology of the war cannot be accepted. No statement that it took place in the first year of Ajātaśattu's reign, whether legal or *de facto*, can be found in either Buddhist or Jaina sources. Though Hoernle believes that it occurred during the lifetime of Bimbisāra-Seṇiya, both the *Nirayāvalikā* and the *Mahā-parinibbāna Sutta* make it clear that it took place after his suicide or murder, not after his abdication. Whatever the accuracy of other calculations, Hoernle's theory is untenable.

c12.s6.83

In our opinion the synchronism of Gosāla's death with the war with the Vajjis is by far the most reliable of any indications of the date of the former event. Illiterate and semi-literate people all over the world retain accurate memories of the years of births and deaths by this naturally arising system of synchronism with important historical events, and there is far less danger of error in such a method than in the memory of the number of years elapsing between one event and another. Therefore we believe that the death of Gosāla occurred soon after the great war between Magadha and the Vajjis, and this war could not have taken place in 500 B.C., if we maintain the general accuracy of both Buddhist and Jaina traditions.

Linked texts (13)