________________
178
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[AUGUST, 1914.
The Jain creed is called in D. N. II., 57 sq.; M. N. I., 377; S. N. I, 66, etc., câturyama consisting in four restrictions.'14 But this is not the creed of Mahâvîra, who enforced five great vows upon his followers, but of his predecessor Pár va the last tirthakara but one. And there seems in fact to be amongst the Jains themselves some confusion concerning the number of the great vows.'15 This is evidently no mistake on the part of the Samañña phalasuta and other Buddhist texts, but rather depicts the state of things such as it was, when Buddha and Maha vira came into closer contact with each other; and from this we may perhaps conclude that Mahavira did not finally fix his doctrine of the five vows before a somewhat later date, when Buddha was already out of any connection with him.
Moreover, Bimbisára is the main ruler in the Buddhist canonical texts, and Ajáta atru does not appear so very much there, which strengthens the statement that Buddha's life was already in the beginning of his reign coming to its end. But in the canon of the Jains Kupika plays a far more important role in the life of Mahavira, and is certainly taken as much notice of as his father, if not more; and while the Buddhists represent their master as visiting and being visited by these kings in Râjagrha, the old capital of Magadha, amongst the Jains Campa, the new capital of Kurika, is almost as often mentioned as the scene of the interviews between the king and the prophet. This, too, undoubtedly points to a later period of Ajata'atru's reign.
I have now reached the end of this investigation. It may be said with justice that most of what it contains has been said in one form or another before; but this is an inevitable evil, common to all such researches of a more general kind. Moreover, I do not regret it, because I have found it most convenient to lay once more before the reader the whole mass of facts, which enables them far better to form a proper opinion, whether it agrees with that suggested above or not. And I think, that the question concerning the date of Mahavira is a very important one, and deserves to be discussed with the aid of as much material as may be available. If I cannot expect that all scholars will agree with my conclusion—which is in fact only that long ago suggested by Professor Jacobi, which I have tried to confirm by some new argumentsI may at least hope that the preceding discussion may be of some use in drawing the attention of scholars to a problem, which seems for a long time to have been somewhat neglected. New material, not available to me, will perhaps be supplied, and may furnish another solution of the question ; for the present I see no possibility of arriving at any solution, harmonising better with the various facts connected with and depending upon the date under consideratio:..
Note.--It has perhaps occurred to the reader of this paper that I have nowhere quoted the introduction by Professor Geiger to his translation of the Mahava 8a (London 1912). In fact, I did not read this treatise before I had finished my paper, and consequently some of the conclusions drawn by me are simply repetitions of what has already been proved by Professor Geiger. But, notwithstanding the unsurpassed knowledge of this eminent scholar on matters connected with the Ceylonese tradition, I cannot agree with the main result of his chronological investigations. As for my reasons for believing the date of Buddha's death to be 477 B. c. they have been set forth above; and I am not convinced of their incorrectness by the possible existence of a Ceylonese era counting from 483 B. C., traces of which cannot be discovered before the eleventh century A. D., or about 1500 years after Buddhu's death. And when Professor Geiger fixes the date of Aoka's Coronation to 264 B. C., he has neglected the epigraphical evidence, according to which the 13th year after that event fell between 260 and 258 B. C. And ia comparison with the contemporaneous inscriptions the evidence of the Ceylonese chronicles is, of course, valueless.
In concluding this paper I wish to express my most sincere thanks to Dr. F. W. Thomas, who has had the great amiability to go through my manuscript in order to correct the númerous passages inconsistent with the usage of the English lauguage. 14 Cf. Leumann, Ind. Stud. XVII, 98 fl.
15 Cf, Odujjamo dhammo in Uttar. XXIII, 12. 16 Cf. Dr. Hoernle in Hastings' Encyclopaedia I, 264.
