Page images
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER V.

CHRONOLOGY.

1. During the first century after Sákya's death, the Buddhist religion was perpetuated, if not extended, by a succession of learned monks. Of these great Arhans but little is related, and even that little is contradictory. During this period the great preceptors of the Buddhist Faith are so variously named, that it is clear the recorded succession cannot be continuous. Even Buddhaghoso gives two different successions down to the third convocation.

[blocks in formation]

See Turnour's Páli Annals, in Prinsep's Journal, vi. 728,

and vii. 791.

2. Mahánámo, the author of the Mahawanso, gives the succession agreeably to the first, and makes each achárya the disciple of his predecessor. In the second list the places of the names have been completely changed, for we know that Mogaliputra should be the last, as he conducted the proceedings of the Third Synod. We know also that Rewato was the leader of the Second Synod. The other list is called by Buddhaghoso, the "unbroken succession of Stháviras," or elders of the faith. It seems likely, therefore, that it contains the names of all the teachers; while the first list gives only those of the most famous. By a new arrangement of the names of the longer list, the succession becomes complete and satisfactory.

3. But there is still one difficulty to be accounted for, in the assertion that all the leaders of the second synod had seen Buddha. This assertion, however, carries its own denial with it; for both Buddhaghoso and Mahánámo agree in stating that six of these leaders were the disciples of Ananda.† Now the companion of Buddha did not qualify himself as an Arahat, or holy teacher, until after the death of his patron. None of his disciples could, therefore, have seen Buddha. In the following amended list it must be remembered that Sáriputra died a few years before Buddha himself; and that Upáli, the com

Mahawanso, pp. 28, 29.

+ Mahawanso, p. 19; and Turnour's Annals, in Prinsep's Journal, vi. 730.

piler of the Vinaya, was one of the disciples of Buddha.

[blocks in formation]

4. This arranged list has the advantage of placing Rewato at the period of the Second Synod, instead of that of the Third Synod, which we know was conducted by Mogaliputra. If we could be positively certain of the accuracy of the date given for Sákya's death, in 543 B.C., the chronology might perhaps be arranged in a satisfactory manner. But, even in early times, there would seem to have been a difference of opinion as to the period of Sakya's death; for Hwan-Thsang, who travelled in India about 632640 A.D., says that accounts differt as to the year of the Nirvana of Buddha. "Some make it 1,200 years ago, others more than 1,300; others again more than 1,500. There are some, too, that assure us that this event occurred about 900 years ago, and that 1,000 years are not yet fulfilled." The same uncertainty would seem to have prevailed even at an earlier date; for Buddhaghoso, speaking about the succession of teachers from the death of Buddha to

* Bhadra is a synonyme of Ananda.

+ See Fo-kwe-ki, c. xxiv. n. 4.

the period of the Third Synod, says that the religion was perpetuated from Upáli to Mogaliputra, "whatover the interval might be."* This expression clearly shows that there was a difference of opinion even in his day (A. D. 420) regarding the exact date of the death of Buddha. But as Buddhaghoso was а Magadha Bráhman, he must have known the Indian date of Sákya's nirvana, and as this date coincides with that of the Burmese and Ceylonese chronicles, I do not well see how it can be set aside. It is a curious fact also that the mean of the dates, obtained by Hwan-Thsang, agrees within one year of the Burmese and Ceylonese dates. Thus the average

interval which elapsed from Sákya's death to HwanThsang's visit, is 1,180 years, from which, deducting 636, the mean period of Hwan-Thsang's travels, we obtain B. C. 544 for the death of Buddha. The coincidence is remarkable.

5. In this work I have made use of the generally received date of B. c. 543, as it appears to me to be sufficiently well established. In adopting this date, I am aware that a correction will be necessary for the Buddhistical date of Asoka's succession in the 218th year after the Nirvana. But as the exact amount of this correction can be obtained from a source independent of the Buddhist annals, I think that every reliance may be placed upon its accuracy. Both Buddhaghoso and Mahánámo agree in making the accession of Nanda, King of Magadha, in the *Turnour's Annals, in Prinsep's Journal, vi. 727.

118th year after the Nirvana, or in B. c. 425; and they assign to him, and to his successors, the nine Nandas, a joint period of only forty-four years. Now all the Brahmanical Purânas, in their accounts of the kings of Magadha, agree in stating that the Nandas reigned one hundred years. By using this amount as the correct one, we obtain Anno Buddha 218, or B. c. 325, as the date of Chandra Gupta's accession; thus making him a contemporary of Alexander the Great and Seleukos Nikator; a fact which has long since been proved by several passages from the Greek historians. The happy identification of Chandra Gupta with the Sandrocottos, or Sandrokuptos of the Greeks was first made by Sir William Jones, and its accuracy has since been generally admitted for the identification depends fully as much upon the similarity of their personal histories as upon the positive identity of their names.

6. It would be difficult, and, perhaps, impossible, to ascertain the real origin of this error of sixtysix years in the Buddhist annals; but I may hazard a guess that the pious and enthusiastic Buddhists of Asoka's age may in the first instance have adopted the date of his conversion as that of the true foundation of the Mauryan Dynasty, by omitting the Brahmanical reigns of his father and grandfather, as well as the first four years of his own reign before his acknowledgment of Buddhism. Under this supposition, his inauguration would have been antedated

* ZaydроKUTтos is the spelling of Athenæus.

« PreviousContinue »