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 Nirvana? 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 (222 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 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 opinion1 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 confirms Dr. Bühler's and Dr. Jacobi's brilliant discovery that Mahâvîra was the same as Nigantha Nâtaputta, who died at Pâvâ during Buddha's lifetime 2. Most likely 527 is too early a date, while another 1 Three Edicts, p. 21; Second Notice, pp. 9, 10. 2 See Jacobi, Kalpa-sûtra of Bhadrabâhu, and Oldenberg, Zeitschrift der D. M. G., XXXIV, P. 749. tradition fixing Mahâvîra's death 155 years before Kandragupta, 470 B.C., is too late. Yet they both show that the distance between Asoka (259-222 B.C.), the grandson of Kandragupta (315–291 B.C.), and the contemporaries of Buddha was by the Gainas also believed to be one of two rather than one century. When I saw that the date of Buddha's death, 477 B. C., which in my History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature (1859) I had myself tried to support by such arguments as were then accessible, had received so powerful a support by the discovery of the inscriptions of Sahasrâm, Rûpnâth, and Bairât, due to General Cunningham, who had himself always been an advocate of the date 477 B.C., and through their careful decipherment by Dr. Bühler, I lost no time in testing that date once more by the Dîpavamsa, that Ceylonese chronicle having lately become accessible through Dr. Oldenberg's edition and translation 2. And here I am able to say that, before having read Dr. Bühler's Second Notice, I arrived, though by a somewhat different way, at nearly the same conclusions as those so well worked out by Dr. Bühler in his restoration of the Episcopal Succession (therâvali) of the Buddhists, and therefore feel convinced that, making all such allowances as the case requires, we know now as much of early Buddhist chronology as could be known at the time of Asoka's Council, 242 B. C. Taking the date of Buddha's death 477 B. C. for granted, I found that Upâli, who rehearsed the Vinaya at the First Council, 477 B.C., had been in orders sixty years in the twenty-fourth year of Agâtasatru, i. e. 461 B.C., which was the sixteenth year A.B. He must therefore3 have been born in 541 B.C., and he died 447 B. C., i. e. thirty years A.B., at the age of 94. This is said to have been the sixth year of Udâyi, and so it is, 453-6=447 B.C. In the year 461 B.C. Dâsaka received orders from Upâli, who was then 80 years of age; and when Dâsaka had been 1 Oldenberg, loc. cit. p. 750. 2 The Dîpavamsa, an ancient Buddhist historical record. London, 1879. 3 Assuming twenty to be the minimum age at which a man could be ordained. in orders forty-five years (Dîpavamsa IV, 41), he ordained Saunaka. This would give us 461–45=416 B.C., while the tenth year of Nâgadâsa, 429—10, would give us 419 A.D. Later on the Dîpavamsa (V, 78) allows an interval of forty years between the ordinations of Dâsaka and Saunaka, which would bring the date of Saunaka's ordination to 421 B. C., instead of 419 or 416 B.C. Here there is a fault which must be noted. Dâsaka died 461-64-397 A.D., which is called the eighth year of Sisunâga, and so it is, 405-8= 397 A. D. When Saunaka had been in orders forty years, i. e. 416–40=376, Kâlâsoka is said to have reigned a little over ten years, i. e. 387-11=376 A.D., and in that year Saunaka ordained Siggava. He died 416-66=350 A.D., which is called the sixth year of the Ten, while in reality it is the ninth, 359—6=353 A.D. If, however, we take 419 as the year of Saunaka's ordination, his death would fall 419-66=353 B.C. Siggava, when he had been in orders sixty-four years, ordained Tishya Maudgalîputra. This date 376—64=312 B.C. is called more than two years after Kandragupta's accession, and so it very nearly is, 315-2=313. Siggava died when he had been in orders seventy-six years, i. e. 376-76-300 A.D. This year is called the fourteenth year of Kandragupta, which it very nearly is, 315-14-301. When Tishya had been in orders sixty1 years, he ordained Mahendra, 312-60=252 B.C. This is called six years after Asoka's coronation, 259-6=253, and so it very nearly is. He died 312-80=232 B. C., which is called the twenty-sixth year of Asoka, and so it very nearly is. 1 I take 60 (80), as given in Dîpavamsa V, 95, 107, instead of 66 (86), as given in Dîpavamsa V, 94. If we test the dates of this table by the length of time assigned to each patriarchate, we find that Upâli ruled thirty years, from Buddha's death, 477 to 447; Dâsaka fifty years. To Saunaka forty-four years are assigned, instead of forty-seven, owing to a fault pointed out before; and to Siggava fifty-two years, or fifty-five1 instead of fifty. Tishya's patriarchate is said to have lasted sixty-eight years, which agrees with previous statements. Lastly, the years of the death of the six patriarchs, as fixed according to the reigns of the kings of Magadha, agree extremely well. Upâli died in the sixth year of Udâyi,i.e.453—6=447B.C. Dâsaka died in the eighth year of Sisunâga, i. e. 405 — 8 = 397 B.C. Saunaka died in the sixth year of the Ten, i. e. 359—6— 353 B.C., showing again the difference of three years. The combined patriarchates of Saunaka and Siggava are given as 99 by the Dîpavamsa. Siggava died in the fourteenth year of Kandragupta, i. e. 315-14 301 B.C. Tishya died in the twenty-sixth or twenty-seventh year of Asoka, i. e. 259-27=233 B.C. This general and more than general agreement between dates taken from the history of the kings and the history of the patriarchs leaves on my mind a decided impression of a tradition which, though not strictly historical, in our sense of the word, represents at all events the result of such enquiries as could be made into the past ages of Buddhism. at the time of Asoka, There are difficulties in that tradition which would certainly have been avoided, if the whole chronology had been simply made up: but there is no doubt a certain method too perceptible throughout, which warns us that we must not mistake a smooth chronology for solid history. THE TITLE OF DHAMMAPADA. The title of Dhammapa da has been interpreted in various ways. It is an ambiguous word, and has been accepted as such by the Buddhists themselves. Dhamma has many meanings. Under one aspect it means religion, particularly the religion taught by Buddha, the law which every Buddhist should accept and observe. Under another aspect dhamma is virtue, or the realisation of the law. Pada also has many meanings. In the Abhidhânapadîpikâ it is explained by place, protection, Nirvâna, cause, word, thing, portion, foot, footstep. Hence dhammapada may mean 'footstep of religion,' and thus the title was first rendered by Gogerly, only that he used the plural instead of the singular, and called it 'The Footsteps of Religion,' while Spence Hardy still more freely called it The Paths of Religion.' It may be quite true, as pointed out by Childers, that pada by itself never means path. But it means footstep, and the footstep towards a thing is much the same as what we call the path to a thing. Thus we read, verse 21, 'appamâdo amatapadam,' earnestness is the step, i.e. the path that leads to immor |