________________
170
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[AUGUST, 1914
to the conclusion, that the Ceylonese chronicles or rather their source the old Atthakathawere under a certain misunderstanding, when they spoke of 218 years between the Nirvana and the abhiseka of Aśoka. The 218 years did not refer originally to the abhiseka, but to the completion of the conquest of Kâliiga or to the first conversion, or to both these events. And it must be conceded, that for the Buddhists the conversion was of infinitely more importance than the abhiseka, and that this may have been originally the point in the life of Asoka, from which they started their chronological and historical records concerning him. As for the conquest of Kalinga it was probably of no importance in chronological calculations, but merely in connection with the conversion, and there is in my opinion no single trace of an era founded upon the incorporation of Kaliiga in the realm of Asoka, either in Kalinga itself or anywhere else."70
If, then, 218 years of the Ceylonese chronicles did originally refer to the conversion, and not to the coronation of Asoka, this event would have taken place in 259 B. C., and the final conversion about three years later, or 256 B. C., i. e., if we accept the year 477 B. C. for the death of Buddha. But this seems to be some years too late, as the conquest of Kalinga must have been completed at latest in 262 B. c. However, we must notice two facts, which possibly might bring the dates into full agreement with each other: (1) as stated above there is a disagreement between Buddhaghosa and the chronicles which may be of certain importance, and (2) the Mahavamsa attributes to Bindusâra a reign of 28 years, whilst the Brahmanical sources, which may be more correct here, give him only 25, or three years less. These slight differences taken together may involve the conclusion, that the 218 years are in reality a little exaggerated, and so I find in this no objection, but rather a confirmation, of the correctness of the adjusted date 477 B. C.
The relations of the Mahavamsa, albeit in some points a little incredible, seem to be very clear, when we turn to the Dipavamsa, which gives us a most confused description of the different kings and their reigns. As far as I have been able to find a way through these entangled statements, there seem to be two main traditions concerning the kings of Magadha, of which the first is desperately confused, and the second is muddled up in a strange way with the calculations of the reigns of Ceylonese kings. To commence: two cardinal points stand out in the Dipavamsa, as well as in the Mahavamsa, viz., that the second Council was held 100 years after Buddha, when ten years and 15 days had elapsed of the reign of Aśoka, son of Susunâga,77 and that the second Aśoka was anointed 218 years after Buddha.78 What the Dipavamsa supplies, in scattered notices from III, 56 ff. onwards as far as VI, 1 ff., where the reign of Aśoka begins, is that Bimbisâra reigned 52 years, Ajâtaśatru 8 years before and 24 years after the Nirvâṇa-32 years and Udaya (-bhadda) 16 years 9: but Anuruddhaka
Dipav. IV, 44; V, 25. 79 Dipav. IV, 38; V, 97.
76 I agree with Dr. Fleet J.R.A.S. 1910, pp. 242 ff.824 ff, that the inscription of Khâravela does not give us any right to presume the existence of a Maurya era, although I find his interpretation of line 16 in that inscription absolutely inacceptable. Dr. Fleet translates: he produces, causes to come forth (ie., revives), the sixty-fourth chapter (or other division) of the collection of seven Augas. What does this mean? The seven first angas have never, as far as I know, been taken as forming a unity in the canon, and could not well do it, as Uvasagadasdo is in composition far more similar to VIII and IX than to VI; and presuming that the canon existed in its present shape at that time which is most incredible the 64th Chapter would correspond to Bhagavati, saya 5, which Kharavela would have revived. This is absurd. Moreover, angas 9-11 do not contain 75 adhyayana's, for 33+10+20 make 63. But I shall deal with this subject in another connexion, That Candragupta did not found any Maurya era seems clear, as Asoka never makes use of it; and moreover the statement of Megasthenes in Pliny VI, 17 (21), that at his time the Hindus reckoned 153 kings from father. Bacchus' down to Alexander during a time of 6451 years, seems to be a distorted record of the reckoning of the Kaliyuga, or the use of some Laukika era., Cf. also Arrian, Ind. ch. 8.
78 Dipav. VI, 1 ff.
