..续本文上一页dation of the history of Buddha”s religion, accepts Westergaard”s date for the beginning of Kandragupta”s reign, 320 B.C., instead of 322 (Kern), 315 (myself); and as he assigns (p. 41) to Bindusâra 25 years instead of 28 (Mahâvamsa, p. 21), he arrives at 268 as the year of Asoka”s coronation^[2]. He admits that the argument derived from the mention of the five foreign kings in one of Asoka”s inscriptions, dated the twelfth year of his reign, is too precarious to enable us to fix the date of Asoka”s reign more definitely, and though, in a general way, that inscription confirms the date assigned by nearly all scholars to Asoka in the middle of the third century B.C., yet there is nothing in it that Asoka might not have written in 247 quite as well as in 258-261. What chiefly distinguishes Mr. Rhys Davids” chronology from that of his predecessors is the shortness of the period between Asoka”s coronation and Buddha”s death. On the strength of an examination of the list of kings and the list of the so-called patriarchs, he reduces the traditional 218 years to 140 or 150, and thus arrives at 412 B.C. as the probable beginning of the Buddhist era.

　　 In this, however, I cannot follow him, but have to follow Dr. Bühler. As soon as I saw Dr. Bühler”s first essay on the Three New Edicts of Asoka, I naturally felt delighted at the unexpected confirmation which he furnished of the date which I had assigned to Buddha”s death, 477 B.C. And though I am quite aware of the

　　[1. Three New Edicts of Asoka, Bombay, 1877; Second Notice, Bombay, 1878.

　　2. Mr. Rhys Davids on p. 50 assigns the 35 years of Bindusâra rightly to the Purânas, the 38 years to the Ceylon Chronicles.]

　　p. xli danger of unexpected confirmations of one”s own views, yet, after carefully weighing the objections raised by Mr. Rhys Davids and Professor Pischel against Dr. Bühler”s arguments, I cannot think that they have shaken Dr. Bühler”s position. I fully admit the difficulties in the phraseology of these inscriptions: but I ask, Who could have written these inscriptions, if not Asoka

　　 And how, if written by Asoka, can the date which they contain mean anything but 256 years after Buddha”s Nirvâna

　　 These points, however, have been argued in so masterly a manner by Dr. Bühler in his ”Second Notice,” that I should be afraid of weakening his case by adding anything of my own, and must refer my readers to his ”Second Notice.” Allowing that latitude which, owing to the doubtful readings of MSS., and the constant neglect of odd months, we must allow in the interpretation of Buddhist chronology, Asoka is the only king we know of who could have spoken of a thirty-fourth year since the beginning of his reign and since his conversion to Buddhism. And if he calls that year, say the very last of his reign (212 B.C.), 256 after the departure of the Master, we have a right to say that as early as Asoka”s time, Buddha was believed to have died about 477 B.C. Whether the inscriptions have been accurately copied and rightly read is, however, a more serious question, and the doubts raised by Dr. Oldenberg (Mahâvagga, p. xxxviii) make a new collation of the originals absolutely indispensable, before we can definitely accept Dr. Bühler”s interpretation.

　　 I cannot share Dr. Bühler”s opinion^[1] as to the entire worthlessness of the Gaina chronology in confirming the date of Buddha”s death. If the Svetâmbara Gainas place the death of Mahâvîra 470 before Vikramâditya, i.e. 56 B.C. + 470 = 526 B.C.,and the Digambaras 605, i.e. 78 A.D. deducted from 605 = 527 B.C., this so far confirm…

《The Dhammapada - Introduction》全文未完，请进入下页继续阅读…