________________
168
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[AUGUST, 1914.
years mentioned in the Purara. If so, we must increase the 36 by five years, which would bring his accession to the throne to 273 B. c., which is nearly coincident with the date calculated from the inscriptions, 276-274 B.C.
So far concerning the Brahmanical tradition. The Jain records consist mainly in the versus memoriales treated of above, and the traditions incorporated in Hemacandra's Parisi laparvan, but these must be considered later on, and so I pass now to the statements of the Buddhists, as we find them related in the Ceylonese chronicles. Here we must begin with the Mahavamsa, as the statements there are at least clear, whilst the Diparanna gives several utterly confused traditions.47
According then to the Mahavamsa II, 25 sq. and IV, 1 sq., V. 14 sq., Bimbisâra reigned 52 years, and was succeeded by his son and murderer Ajáta-atru, who reigned 8 years before and 24 years after the death of Buddha, or altogether 32 years. The princes after Ajátaiatru may have been rather faint supporters of the Buddhists religion, for the Mahavamsa IV, 1 s calls the following a pitughatakavamsa,' a 'lineage of parricides', and tells that one after another succeeded to the throne by slaying his father and predecessor. They were : Udayabhaddaka, reigning 16 years, Anuruddhaka and Munda together 8 years68 and Nâgadasaka 24 years. After these monsters, of whom the last was slain by the infuriated people, a righteous minister, Susunaga, reigned 18 years, and was succeeded by his son, Kâlâsoka, whose reign lasted 28 years. In the eleventh year (atite dasame vasse, IV, 8) of his reign the second council was convoked at Vesali, 100 years after the Nirvana of Buddha. Kálásoka was succeeded by his ten sons, who reigned 22 years, and these by the nine Nandas, reigning another 22 years 69 After the dethronement of the last Nanda by Câpakya, Candragupta reigned 24 years. His son Bindusara reigned 28 years, and was succeeded by Asoka, who, after having murdered his 99 brothers, was anointed king 218 years after the Nirvana. All these dates fit fairly well to each other, but the 'error' in the Samantapasadiká mentioned above shows undoubtedly that the tradition is not on all points to be trusted, and we may perhaps, after all, not attach too much weight to the report that Asoka was anointed just 218 years after the death of Buddha. However, there is one date, which may have been at least approximately known by the Buddhists, and that is the year of the second Council. That it took place 100 years A. B. is asserted by the C.V. XII, 1, 1, and it does not matter here if that is not the quite correct date, or even if the Council never
67 I cannot consider here the Divyavadana, which states that Aloka reigned 100 years after Buddha (pp. 368, 379 etc.) and gives on pp. 369, 430 an utterly increible list of kings, which is in contradiction with all other records. According to this list the rulers of Magadha were the following: BimbisAra, Ajategatru. Udayin (Udayibhadra), Munda, Kakavarnin, Sahali, Tulakuci, Mah&mapdala, Prasenajit, Nanda, Vindusara, A oka, Sampadi (son of Kundla and grandson of Asoka), Vphaspati, Vihasena (!), Pusyadharman and Pusyaratha. I only point to the fact, that in this list, Candragupta is forgotten, from which its value may be judged.
63 In the Samantapdedika 3213 ff. Buddhaghosa assigns to these rulers 18 years instead of 8: a very remarkable tradition as it is in contradiction with the total sum of years between Buddha and Asoka. This seems to point to a grave uncertainty in the Coylonese tradition.
9 It has not been observed before, as far as I know, that the Jain tradition has preserved a faint recollection of K Aldaoka and his successors. In Upanga 8 and 9 (niraye valt) it is spoken of prince Kala and his brothers, whom the tradition makes out to be step-brothers of Ajatasatru, and later on of his 10 sons. two of whom bear the names Mahapadma and Nandana. This shows a certain coincidence with other relations of the Nandas, albeit in an utterly confused form.
