________________
204
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[OCTOBER, 1914
Lastly, the year when Buddha left his home to lead a hermit's life is given as "Eetzâna 97" in Vol. I, p. 62, and as "Eetzána 96" in Vol. II, p. 72. This is not a discrepancy, because we may understand the former to be an expired, the latter a current, year. Similarly, the Eetzâna year of Buddha's death, 148, has, I believe, to be understood only as a current year, the equivalent of expired year 147.
(8) I have reserved for the last place the discussion of the important question, whether, admitting the correctness of the dates shown for Buddha's life, in the last column of the chart, the date of his death may not be 477 B. c., as conjectured, first by Cunningham, and more recently by Prof. Charpontier of Upsala in the July issue of this year's Indian Antiquary. I am bound to say that two sets of considerations are in favour of 477 B, C.: in the first place, this date would make him fully 80 years old when he died, which indeed is the commonly received age, attained by Buddha when he passed into Nirvana ; and in the second place, although the week day of Vaisakha su. 15 and Nak. "Visakha " in 477 B. c. was Monday (April 19; 90 ; .44), yet the next day was Tuesday, and as he is said to have died "on Tuesday, a little before day break," this may mean, though not strictly, "a little before the daybreak of Tuesday:" that is, in the early morning hours of what we should call Tuesday, (in the Indian Calendar, in the last hour or two of Monday).
The real difficulty, however, about 477 B. c. is in harmonizing with this date the statement that the new religious era began on the 1st of the waxing moon of Tabaong (Phâlguna) "in the year of Buddha's death," the week-day being either Sunday, as stated in Bigandet's note on p. 133 of Vol. II, or Monday, as stated at p. 113 of Vol. II of his text. The following are all the relevant Phálgunas :Phálguna kukla 1 of 479-78 B.C. fell on Sunday, 19 Jany. 478, B.C. ending at 88 of day.
478-77 fell on a Friday. »
477-76 , Wednesday. , 476-75 ,
Sunday (ending at 78 of day). We cannot possibly adopt the Phâlguna su. I of either 478-77 B. c. or 477-76 B.c. as the commencement of New Religious Era, because in neither case was the week-day Sunday or Monday. We are driven, therefore, to conclude that the 12 months beginning with Phálguna of 479-78 B. C. (19 January 478 B. o.) were the 12 months constituting the year on which Buddha died", i.e., that he died on Vaisakha su. 15 of 478 B.C., not on Vaisakha su. 15 of 477 B.C.
(9) The Eetzâna Era is no doubt, as observed by Dr. Fleet in J. R. A. S. 1912, p. 239, " late invention"; but it is, nevertheless, a true invention,
(a) because the dates expressed in that era are, astronomically, true datesand (6) because they include, by implication, one historically true date, the year,
478 B. C., of the death of Buddha. The week-days, coupled with tithis and nakshatras, direct our attention, with almost absolute certainty, to one and only one series of years which, thanks to them, can be verified and identified with as much confidence as if they had been recorded in 478 B. C. Knowing, then, from other sources, the historical probability of the central year, 478 B. O., (that it is approximate, according to Dr. Fleet, within 5 years, does not detract much from its historical value), we need not be disturbed by the reflection that this and other surrounding dates must have been laboriously calculated, and for the first time fitted out with the full dress of vara, tithi and nakshatra, by some astronomer in the 5th, 6th, 7th or a later century A. D. The later the century, the more genuinely do the historian, the chronologist and the critic become interested in the discovery that, for a thousand years, if not more, after Buddha's death, the true year of its occurrence was, notwithstanding many contradictory traditions, faithfully preserved somewhere in Buddhistic sacred lore.
