Indian Antiquary Vol 44

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 54

48
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[MARCH, 1915
tradition. It is well known that the Puranas give 100 yeare to the nine Nandas, but it is not so well known that most of them give an extra hundred to Kautilya. The point is that they recognise two centuries to have elapsed between the first of the Nandas and the first of the Mauryas. It appears to me that the Puranas are not wrong in the period assigned, but that they are wrong in confining the Nandas to two generations. I shall presently go to the considerations which incline me to this view. My theory is that Mahapadma, the first of the Nanda dynasty, is not the successor of Nandivardhana, but the father of Bimbisára, the Kshatrajit of the Puraņas. In the light of this view the nine Nandas are the last nine rulers of the Saiśunâga dynasty. There is nothing absurd in giving two centuries to nine generations of rulers.
It is easy enough to fix the date of the beginning of the Baisunaga dynasty. It is almost certain that the Buddha attained Nirvana between 487 and 477 B. C. According to the Buddhists, this event took place in the eighth year of Ajátaśatru's reign. The Puranas are agreed that Bimbisâra reigned 28 years. There were four generations before Bimbisára, and we may assign 22 years to each generation. This accords with the average duration of reigns in European history. The Mahavarisa itself assigns 22 years only to each of two generations (of nine and ten rulers respectively) immediately preceding Chandragupta. The Puranic data also fall into line if we refer the total 362 years to the Saišunagas and Nandas put together (19 rulers). In this way we get, counting backwards, 477 + 7 + 28 + 88 (4 X 22) — C. 600 B. C. as the most probable date of the beginning of the rule of the Saišunâga dynasty.
The probable duration of each reign may now be worked out. The data of the Puranas have to be viewed critically. They have considered contemporary dynasties and rulers as having come one after another. I have already referred to the mistake as regards the Pradyotas of Avanti, who are the contemporaries of the Saišunâgas, but are considered by the Puranas as their predecessors. To come to individual rulers, the Vishnu-Purana mentions, among the rulers of Kosala, Prasenajit, son of Rahula, son of Sakya Buddha, whereas we know from the Buddhist records that Prasenajit was the son of king Aranemi Brahmadatta of Srivasti and a contemporary of the Buddha 25 The years assigned by the Puranas, moreover, are not mutually exclusive in most cases. Therefore it is that the totals given for individual reigns do not agree with the total for the whole dynasty. From Parikshit to Nanda, for instance, we have 1115 years given in the Bhagavata-Purâna, whereas the details of reigns come up to 1500 when added. Commentator Sridhara notices the fact, but attempts no explanation. Again, the Puranas give 137 years to the ten Mauryas, which figure does not agree with the details given. As a matter of fact, the overlapping of reigns was more usual than exceptional. This was due to the custom of the reigning kings getting their heirs recognised even in their own lifetime. The same difficulty appears in dealing with the Theravali also. An old Sthavira has been known to ordain the foremost of his disciples long before his demise.26 The difficulties of the Puranas are, moreover, due to their confusions in genealcgy affecting their system of chronology. They are thus led to allow abnormally long reigns for rulers in some cases and compress a series of reigns into a few years in other cases.
Sisunaga is given 40 years of reign by the Puranas, and 18 by the Mahavainsa. He was already king of Benares before he conquered Magadha, and he may have ruled a
* Dulva X1.
(Rockhill op. cit.)
25 See, for instance, Diparasit sa IV. 41.