Manual of Indian Buddhism c7.s2.52

c7.s2.52

the name of Caṇḍavajji¹. It is well-known that Kāśyapa the Great, and not Upāli, was the head of the Order after Buddha's death, but it is admitted that Upāli was the chief of the Vinaya. Dāsaka and Sonaka are likewise designated as chiefs of the Vinaya. Therefore it is exceedingly strange that in the Council of Vaiśālī, where such important questions of discipline were treated, the chief Sonaka is conspicuous by his absence. If such a chief did exist, the great men of the committee completely ignored him. Another suspicious fact is the notice that Tissa Moggaliputta received the Upasampadā ordination in the 3d year of Candragupta's reign, i. e. 314 B. C. or somewhat earlier. He died 86 years after his ordination², i. e. at the age of 106 years. If, contrary to the expressed view of the Sinhalese chroniclers, the numbers are taken as representing the years of life of the five teachers, then the sum total will yield 5 × 20 = 100 less, because the Upasampadā is fixed at 20 years. The interval between the Nirvāṇa and the death of Tissa M. will then be reduced with a whole century. It is by no means impossible that a similar ambiguity in the traditional numbers lies at the bottom of the difference between the Sinhalese and the N. dates of the Nirvāṇa. The otherwise inexplicable want of agreement in regard of that date, may be accounted for on the assumption that the Buddhists of various sects were in the habit of calculating an initial date by summing up the traditional number of years allotted to the first five successive chiefs or reputed chiefs of the Vinaya³. The considerations which may have moved each sect to adopt their own date for the Nirvāṇa are concealed to us, but it would seem that in addition to dogmatical reasons the synchronism of ecclesiastical dates with events of local or national interest have influenced. Thus the Chinese have managed to throw back the initial date to ± 1000 B. C. It is possible, nay probable that the Sinhalese⁴ have acted upon the same principle. This would explain how they got their date of 543 B. C., which is proved to be false.