________________
202
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
OCTOBER, 1914.
death, Mârgasira sukļa 2 ended on November 14, at 51 ghatikas (in Lanka time,) after mean sunrise, and as śukla 1 had ended at the corresponding part of the previous day, it is clear, from the rule cited above, that śukla 2, Nov. 14, was âdi chandrôdaya dina or first moon rise in the month. Nakshatra Purva Ashácha was current all through Nov. 14 and came to end at 21 ghatikas after mean sunrise next day. The case was very different in 247. B. C. Since, in that year, Mârgasira śukla 1 ended at 9 ghatikás after mean sunrise on 6 November, it is evident that that was adi chandrôdaya dina or the day when the crescent first appeared. Nakshatra Purva Ashacha, however, commenced only at 50 ghațikâs after sunrise on the same day, i. e. 2 hours after midnight and was current for only about 9 ghatikâs at the very end of the day. The anointment could, of course, have been performed in what we should call the small hours of the morning of 7 November, 247 B. C. so as to bring the ceremony within the influence of Pârva Ashâcha, but generally speaking, such a day would not be called a day of Pârva Âshâcha, whereas 14 Nov. 242 B. C. was strictly a day when Purva Ashacha joined with the adi chardrôdaya dina of Mârgafira, So far. the calculation of nakshatras appears to point to 242 B. C. rather than to 247 B. c. as the year of anointment of Devânâmpiya-Tista; and consequentially, to 478 B. C. rather than to 483 B. C., as the year of Buddha's death. Dr. Fleet promised to exhibit in a separate article, the process of determining the nakshatras, but to the best of my belief he has not done so yet. The determination is very easy by the tables and method of my Indian Chronology.
(4) One of the reasons which led Dr. Fleet to adopt Kârttika śukļa 8 rather than the traditional Vai âkha (ukla 15 as the day of Buddha's death, was that, on the latter assumption, it was not possible to place the two anointments of Devânâmpiya-Tissa 247 B. C. Mârgasîra Su. 1, and 246 B. C., Vaisakha sukļa 15, as well as the arrival of Mahindo in Ceylon (B. c. 247 Jyaishtha śukla 15) within the year designated by Dipavansa as "236 years after the death of Buddha," i. e. after 483 B. C., Vaisákha Sukla 15. He argued rightly that, if each "Vaisakha sukļa 15" was the commencement of a new year, the arrival of Mahindo at any rate must belong to a year later than 236 expired of the Buddha era, which would be complete on Vaisakha Sukla 15, 247, B. C. Now, if as I have shown above, the ancient Buddhist year always took its departure from sukļa 1 of Phalguna, then it follows (a) that year 236 expired of the religious era would be marked by Phalguna sukla 1 in (479 B. C. less 236-) 243 B. C., and (b) that the second and third events, referred to above would both fall within the space designated by a single year, 236 expired, (running from 243 B. c. Phâlguna Sukla 1 to 242 B. c. Mâgha Amâvâsya). Such being the case, the necessity for adopting Kârttika śukļa 8 as the day of Buddha's death, in great measure, ceases. Dr. Fleet seems to think that both the anointments of Devânâmpiya-Tissa should be placed within the 237th year current after the death of Buddha. I do not know if the text of Dipavamsa requires this construction. The text, as quoted by him (J. R. A. S. 1909, p. 11) makes two statements, (1) that DevânâmpiyaTissa was anointed 236 years after the death of Buddha; (2) that he was twice anointed. It may be that the 1st anointment was in the 236th year current, towards its close, and the second in the 237th year current.
(5) It follows from an examination of these week-day dates that Buddha's age at the time of his death was 79 compl te years, not 80 years, and that supposing he was born in the year 68 of the Eetzana Era, he could be said to have died in the year 148 of that era only in the sense that the year 148 was varttamâna or current. See however, division (8) below of this note.
