Buddhist Philosophy in India and Ceylon c6.s2.31

c6.s2.31

Moreover, it must be added, that a certain doubt still exists, not indeed as to the historical existence of the Buddha,¹ but as to his date. The normally accepted date, placing his death in the decade 487-77 B. C., depends on a correction of the Sinhalese tradition, which strictly interpreted would give rather the date 544-3 B. C. for the Parinirvāṇa of the Blessed One.² A singularly unhappy attempt has, indeed, recently been made to resuscitate the traditional date, based on the absurd suggestion that there exist actual portrait statues of the Caiçunāga dynasty and an implausible interpretation of an inscription of Khāravela of Kaliṅga.³ But a more serious difficulty inevitably suggests itself; to what extent can we trust the tradition of the Pali Canon which makes the Buddha contemporaneous with Ajātasattu, apart from the question of the true date of that monarch? Is it not possible that the synchronism is fictitious, a view which would rid us of the unpleasant spectacle of the Buddha conversing amicably with a parricide? We have, of course in the Upaniṣads the name of Yājñavalkya associated with that of Janaka of Videha, and no one probably would care to insist on the contemporaneity. We have, moreover, some positive evidence of confusion in the records, for the history of Jainism renders it probable that Mahāvīra died in 468 B. C.,⁴ that is, after the death of the Buddha, while the Canon⁵ is absolutely clear in asserting that Mahāvīra died in the Buddha's lifetime. This is one of many inconsistencies and errors in the canonical statements,⁶ and there is thus justification for the doubt expressed by inquirers so different as Franke and de la Vallée Poussin as to the date of the Buddha, though the case against the traditional date is insufficient to justify its rejection out and out.⁷