^{page 979 note 1} Beal, Records, 1. 99:—“ 400 years after my departure from the world, “ there will be a king who shall rule it called Kanishka …… this king “ ascended the throne 400 years after the nirvāṇa, and governed the whole of “ Jambudvīpa.”

Watters, On Yuang Chwang, 1. 203:—“ 400 years after my decease a sovereign “ will reign, by name Kanishka …… Exactly 400 years after the death of “ the Buddha Kanishka became sovereign of all Jambudvīpa.”

The Life does not present a passage answering to this one.

^{page 980 note 1} Beal, Records, 1. 151:—“ In the 400th year after the nirrāṇa of Tathāgata,

“ Kanishka, king of Gandhāra, haying succeeded to the kingdom, his kingly “ renown reached far, and he brought the most remote within his jurisdiction. ”

Watters, On Yuan Chwang, 1. 270:—“ Our pilgrim next proceeds to relate “ the circumstances connected with the great Council summoned by Kanishka. “ This king of Gandhāra, Yuan-chuang tells us, in the 400th year after the “ decease of Buddha, was a great and powerful sovereign whose sway extended to “ many peoples. ”

For the corresponding passage in the Life, see Julien, 95; Beal, 71.

^{page 980 note 2} By the application of “ omitted hundreds ” in another direction, Mr. Vincent Smith arrived at the result that the year 5 for Kanishka means the year 3205, = A.D. 129–30, of a certain reckoning, belonging to Kashmīr, which has its initial point in B.C. 3076. But, after referring to a certain passage in Albērūnī's India, which shews that the use of “ omitted hundreds ” did exist in certain parts at a certain time, and after quoting a remark by General Sir Alexander Cunningham that (see Num. Chron., 1892. 42) “ the omission of the hundreds …… was a common practice in India in reckoning the Sapt Rishi kāl, or Era of the Seven Rishis,” Mr. Smith has proceeded to say (this Journal, 1903. 17):—“No such mode or practice ever existed. The actual practice was “ and is very different, and requires the omission of both thousands and hundreds. “ The year 3899 is actually written as 99, and might conceivably be written as “ 899, with the omission of the thousands, but it could not possibly be written “ as 3 · 99, omitting the hundreds only. This observation is fatal to the theories “ which seek to explain the Kuṣana dates”—[i.e., the dates of the series of the records which mention Kanishka, etc.]—“4 to 98, as meaning 404 to 498 “ of the Seleucidan era, 204 to 298 of the Śaka era, and so forth. There is no “ evidence that the year 98 ever meant either 298 or 498, although it might “ mean 3298 or 2498, or any other figure in thousands and hundreds ending “ with 98.”

On that I will only remark that, while a certain freedom of argument may be permissible in writing about matters of ancient history, it really is going too far, to credit Sir A. Cunningham with such nonsense as is imputed to him by suggesting that, if he had omitted the hundreds of any such number as 3899, he would have given any remainder except 99.

^{page 981 note 1} Meaning, of course, documents in any way of a formal nature.

^{page 982 note 1} It may be useful to remark here that the name Aśōka is not at all unique. Without making any detailed search, and without taking count of double-barrelled names such as those of Aśōkavarṇa, an alleged king, perhaps = Aśōka the Maurya (Divyāvadāna, 140), Aśōkavarman, an alleged ancestor of the Pallava kings (H.SII, 2. 355), and Aśōkavalla, a ruler of the Sapādalaksha country in the twelfth century A.D. (EI, 5. appendix, Nos. 575–577). we have the following instances of the occurrence of the name Aśōka pure and simple:—

(1) The Maurya king Aśōka-Dharmāśōka; as is well known, in the Vishṇu and Bhāgavata Purāṇas he is called Aśōkavardhana.

(2) The Śaiśunāga king Aśōka-Kālāśōka, regarding whom see fully further on.

(3) Aśōka, younger brother of king Dēvānaṁpiya-Tissa of Ceylon, a contemporary of Aśōka the Maurya; commentary on the Mahāvaṁsa, Tumour, 95; Wijesinha, 61.

(4) Aśōka, a prehistoric king, apparently at Bārāṇasī; Dīpavaṁsa, 3. 37.

(5) Aśōka, the personal attendant of the Buddha Vipaśyin; Dīgha-Nikāya, part 2, p. 6, and Nidānakathā, 41.

(6) Aśōka, a Brāhmaṇ, in the time of the Buddha Kāśyapa; Mahāvaṁsa, Turnour, 162; Wijesinha, 104.

(7) Aśōka, maternal uncle of an alleged king Mahāpraṇāda; Divyāvadāna, 59.

^{page 982 note 2} Julien, Mémoires, 1. 170, 414, 422; 2. 140: Beal, Records, 1. 150; 2. 85, 90, 246: Watters, On Yuan Chwang, 1. 267; 2. 88 (at 2. 92, 234, this detail has been omitted). See also in the Life, Julien, 137, 198; Beal, 101, 144.

The first of the passages in the Si-yu-ki is found in the account of Kashmīr. The last of those passages, and the second of the two in the Life, are found in the accounts of Ceylon: but the statement is so opposed to the Ceylonese tradition, both in this detail and in representing Mahēndra as the younger brother instead of the son of Aśōka, that it is practically impossible that Hiuen Tsiang can have heard it there, even if he actually went there, as to which there is a doubt; in this detail, at any rate, he must have worked into his account of Ceylon information obtained in India.

^{page 982 note 3} Takakusu, Records of the Buddhist Religion, 14.

^{page 985 note 1} This is easily arrived at, by deduction, from the Dīpavaṁsa, 6. 1, 20, 21. It is expressly stated by the commentary on that work, the Mahāvaṁsa, in the statement about Aśōka (Turnour, 21 f.) that:—

Vēmātikē bhātarē sō hantvā ēkūnakaṁ satarṁ |

sakalē Jambudīpasmiṁ ēkarajjaṁ apāpuṇi ||

Jina-nibbānatō pachchhā purē tass = ābhisēkatō |

aṭṭhārasaṁ vassa-sataṁ dvayaṁ ēvaṁ vijāniyarṁ ||

Patvā chatuhi vassēhi ēkarajja-mahāyasō |

purē Pāṭaliputtasmiṁ attānaṁ abhisēchayi ||

“ Having slain (his) brothers, born of various mothers, to the number of a hundred less by one, he attained sole sovereignty in the whole of Jambudípa. After the death of the Conqueror (Buddha), (and) before the anointment of him (Aśōka), (there were) 218 years; thus is it to be understood. Having reached (a point of time marked) by four years, he, possessed of the great glory of sole sovereignty, caused himself to he anointed at the town Pāṭaliputta.”

In the last verse, Turnour translated “ in the fourth year of his accession to his sole sovereignty; ” and this was reproduced by Wijesinha (16). I infer that that is what misled Mr. Vincent Smith.

Again, Buddhaghōsha makes an equally clear statement. After telling us that Aśōka slew all his brothers with the exception of Tissa who was born from the same mother with himself, he says (see Vinayapiṭaka, ed. Oldenberg, 3. 299):— Ghātentō chattāri vassāni anabhisittō = va rajjaṁ kāretvā chatunnaṁ vassānaṁ achchayēna Tathāgatassa parinibbānatō dvinnaṁ vassa-sātanaṁ upari aṭṭhārasamē vassē sakala-Jambudīpē ēkarajj-ābhisēkaṁ pāpuṇi.

“ While slaying (them), he reigned for fonr years without, indeed, being anointed; and then, at the end of (those) four years, in the 218th year after the death of the Tathāgata (Buddha), he attained anointment to the sole sovereignty in the whole of Jambudīpa.”

So, also, in another place Buddhaghōsha says (loc. cit., 321):—Chandaguttō cha chatuvīsati Bindusārō aṭṭhavīsarṁ tass=āvasānē Asōkō rajjaṁ pāpuṇi tassa purē abhisēkā chattāri.

“ And Chandagutta (reigned) for twenty-four (years); (and) Bindusāra for twenty-eight. At his death, or at the end of that (period), Aśōka obtained the sovereignty; before his anointment (took place, there passed) four (years).”

^{page 986 note 1} It is sufficient, I think, to cite only two instances in illustration of this:—

(1) In commenting on the statement recorded by Hiuen Tsiang in his account of Kashmīr, which places Kanishka in the 400th year after the death of Buddha, Mr. Beal said (Records, 1. 151, note 97):—“That is, 300 years after Aśōka (B.C. 263–224), or about A.D. 75.” It is only from B.C. 224, the final date of Aśōka, that 300 years take us to “about A.D. 75; ” to be exact, to A.D. 77. Compare Beal, ibid., 56, note 200; there, however, perhaps on the whole, seeking rather to place Kanishka between A.D. 10 and 40, he counted the 300 years from B.C. 263.

(2) Professor Kern has adopted, from Lassen and other writers, B.C. 259 as approximately right for the initial date of Aśōka (Manual of Indian Buddhism, 112). He has understood that Aśōka “ died after a reign of 37 years” (114). He has cited “ the three centuries which elapsed between the death of Aśoka and the reign of Kaniṣka” (118). And, adopting the view that the Śaka era of A.D. 78 dates from Kanishka, he has taken A.D. 100 as the approximate date of the “ Council ” held under his patronage (121). Here we hare, Aśōka reigned B.C. 259–222; and 300 years from B.C. 222 take us to A.D. 79.

^{page 987 note 1} Dīpavaṁsa, 5. 101: Mahāvarṁsa, Turnour, 122; Wijesinha, 78. The point that these 37 years were counted from the abhishēka, not from the time, four years before that, when he usurped the sovereignty, must be handled on some other occasion.

^{page 987 note 2} I say “ practically” because, though that has been the process, the exact year put forward has not been B.C. 364. Instead of working with B.C. 264 for the abhishēka of Aśōka, the years selected hare been B.C. 268 and 270; and so, by adding sometimes 100 years, sometimes 118 years, the years arrived at in this way for the death of Buddha have been B.C. 368, 370, 380, and 388; see, e.g., views cited (some of them quite possibly subsequently abandoned) by Max Müller in SBE, 10. introd., 44 ff.

^{page 988 note 1} See Dīpavaṁsa, 6. 1, and, for Buddhaghōsha and the Mahāvaṁsa, the note on page 985 above.

^{page 988 note 2} This latter detail is proved whether the word aḍhatiya, aḍhātiya, does or does not actually mean ‘thirty-eight.’ I regret that I have not yet been able to pursue that topic further. But in all these matters there are important side-issues which must be considered; and they delay progress even when other affairs do not intervene.

^{page 988 note 3} The Mahāvaṁsa introduces the account of this heresy, etc., by saying (Turnour, 15):—

Atītē dasamē vassē Kālāsōkassa rājinō |

Sambuddha-parinibbānā ēvaṁ vassa-sataṁ ahu ||

Tadā Vēsāliyā bhikkhū anēkā Vajjiputtakā, etc.

“ When the tenth year of king Kālāsōka had elapsed, then it was a century of years after the death of Buddha. Then many Bhikkhus of Vēsālī, sons of the Vajji people, etc.”

^{page 988 note 4} The first is the case according to the information given by the Dīpavaṁsa and the Mahāvaṁsa. Both of them place the commencement of the reign of Kālāsōka 90 years after the death of Buddha.

The second is the case if the statement was based on information similar to that put forward by Buddhaghōsha. The details of reigns given by him (loc. cit., 321) place the commencement of the reign of Kālāsōka 100 years (instead of 90) after the death of Buddha. The sum, however, of all the reigns up to the initial date of Aśōka, given in the same place, shews a mistake of ten years; it amounts to 228 years, instead of the 218 which he has elsewhere (see note on page 985 above) explicitly stated. And a comparison with the Mahāvaṁsa (Turnour, 15; Wijesinha, 11) shews that the mistake— (whether made by Buddhaghōsha or by copyists, we can hardly say)— lies in assigning eighteen instead of eight years to kings Anuruddha and Muṇḍa in the time between Ajātaśatru and Kālāśōka.

The statements in the Aśōkāvadāna and in the traditions reported by Hiuen Tsiang and I-tsing may gire 100 years on the authority of that mistake, just as well as in the shape of an even century for ninety years.

^{page 990 note 1} Julien, Mémoires, 1. 127 ff.; Beal, Records, 1. 116 f.; Watters, On Yuan Chwang, 1. 222.

^{page 990 note 2} E.g., to quote what ia probably the latest instance, by Watters, On Yuan Chwang, 1. 224.

^{page 991 note 1} If Mr. Beal has rightly reported the Avadānaśataka as placing Aśōka 200 years after Buddha (Records, 1. 151, note 97), then we certainly have there such a round statement, of 200 for 218 years. In the assertion ahout 100 years from Buddha to Aśōka, we may have another such statement, or we may not; see page 988 above, and note 4.