________________
THE THREE NEW EDICTS OF ASOKA.
JUNE, 1878.]
mostly thought it unnecessary to use them. If now the ordination of Sonaka must be placed at the end of 58 A.B., and that of Dâsaka fell at the close of 16 A.B., the age of the latter at Sona ka's upasampada must. have been forty-two years, not forty or forty-five. The number 42 has therefore to be entered in col. 4, and in the text of the Dipavassa dvechattálisa has to be written for panchattálisa (IV. 41) and for chattáliseva (V. 76). The emendation suits the metre in both passages.
The length of Dâsaka's spiritual life, (nearly) sixty-six years, corresponds with the difference between the dates of his upasampadá 16 A.B. (col. 3) and of his death 80 A.B. (col. 6). The length of his chiefship of the Vinaya, too, agrees with the difference between his own and Upâli's death 80 A.B.30 A.B. 50 years (col. 7).
In the case of Sonak a all the figures agree, with the exception of that for his spiritual age. at the upasampadá of Siggava, which, though twice given as forty, must be forty-two. For the difference between the dates Nâ gadasa.10 Pandurâja 2058 A.B., and Kâlâsoka 10 interregnum 11 100 A.B., is 42 years. The text of the Dipavansa again may be altered accordingly, viz.
IV. 44. dvechattálisavasso so thero sonasakasavhayo, instead of the nonsensical chattáriseva vasso so, &c.
V. 76. dvechattálisavasso so thero sonakasavhayo | instead of chattálisavasso dhiro thero, &c. The latter alteration recommends itself, because corresponding passages are mostly given in exactly the same words.
As regards Siggava the date of his upasampadá requires a remark. In one passage (V. 80) we have the equation K âlâ sok a 10= Interregnum (Ceylon) 11: in the other passage (IV. 44-46) Kâlâéoka 10+ month= Interregnum 11 + 6 months. Immediately after the last verse it is further stated that "But at that time, forsooth, one hundred years after Buddha's death," the Ves âliya schism occurred. It seems, therefore, that the author meant to place Sigga va's ordination just at the end of the first century after Buddha. The discrepancy in the dates of the kings may be adjusted by assuming that the beginning of Kalâsoka's reign, as well as that of the Interregnum, did not fall exactly in the beginning of the ninety-first
=
=
and of the ninetieth year of Buddha, but that the former began fifteen days, and the latter six months, after the beginning of the corresponding year of Buddha. If that was the case, it would seem that the author gave in the first passage the exact figures, and in the second, according to his usual manner, round figures only. The difference between Sigga va's upasampadá (100 A. B.) and Tissa's upasampadá ChanPakundaka 20 164 A. B., is dragupta 2 exactly 64, and agrees with the number of years allotted to him in col. 4. The length of his spiritual life (seventy-six years) likewise corresponds with the difference between the dates for his upasampadá and for his death. But he cannot have been Chief of the Vinaya for fifty-five years, as the difference between his death and that of his predecessor amounts to fifty-two years only. It seems certain that in this case also we have to deal with a corrup tion of the text only. Besides the total of the figures entered in col. 7 for the first five Theras must agree with the date of the last in col. 6,-244 A.B. This agreement can only be obtained if we substitute 52 for 55. If the latter number is retained, we get 247-244, which is obviously nonsense. Finally the half-verse (V. 966) in which the date occurs is obviously corrupt. I propose to read for paschapshideavassam Siggavassa afthasthi Moggalipullasarhayo pannúsavassam Siggavo atthasaṭṭhim Moggalisavhayo |
157
In order to make out the metre, it is necessary to elide the first syllable of aṭṭhasaṭṭhim, and to make a disyllable of Moggali, as has to be done in.other cases.
In the case of Tissa the figure given for his spiritual age at the upasampadá of Mahinda is wrong. For the difference between Chandragupta 2 Pakundaka 58 164 A.B. and Aśoka 6 = 224 A.B. is sixty years, not sixty-six as given in the text and in the table. Though the faulty figure occurs in two passages (V. 82 and VII. 24c), still the latter verse 24a contains a certain proof that the mistake belongs to the copyists, not to the author, of the Dipavansa. For in that line it is explicitly stated that Moggaliputto was fifty-four years old at Aśoka's coronation. It is obvious that six years later he could not be sixty-six years old, but must be sixty.
45 tena kho samayena vaasasatam hi nibbate bhagavate vesilika Vajjiputtak, &o.
