William I., King of England, is commonly called the Conqueror; he was,
moreover, the illegitimate son of Robert, Duke of Normandy, surnamed le
Diable. An opera, we hear, was invented on this subject, and full of
miraculous events, called "Robert the Devil," showing its traditional
character. Therefore shall we be also justified in saying that Edward
the Confessor, Saxons and all, up to the time of the union of the houses
of York and Lancaster under Henry VII.--the new historical period in
English history--are all "fabulous tradition" and "such a person as
William the Conqueror most likely never existed?"
2nd.--In the Chinese chronology--continues the dissecting critic
--"the list of the thirty-three Buddhist patriarchs .... is of a
doubtful character. For Western history the exact Ceylonese
chronology begins with 161 B.C." Extending beyond that date there
exists but "a traditional native chronology. Therefore .... what goes
before .... is but fabulous tradition."
The chronology of the Apostles and their existence has never been proved
historically. The history of the Papacy is confessedly "obscure."
Ennodius of Pavia (fifth century) was the first one to address the Roman
Bishop (Symmochus), who comes fifty-first in the Apostolic succession,
as "Pope." Thus, if we were to write the history of Christianity, and
indulge in remarks upon its chronology, we might say that since there
were no antecedent Popes, and since the Apostolic line began with
Symmochus (498 A.D.), all Christian records beginning with the Nativity
and up to the sixth century are therefore "fabulous traditions," and all
Christian chronology is "purely hypothetical."
3rd.--Two discrepant dates in Buddhist chronology are scornfully pointed
out by the Oxford Professor. If the landing of Vijaya, in Lanka--he
says--on the same day that Buddha reached Nirvana (died) is in
fulfilment of Buddha's prophecy, then "if Buddha was a true prophet, the
Ceylonese argue quite rightly that he must have died in the year of the
conquest, or 543 B.C." (p. 270). On the other hand, the Chinese have a
Buddhist chronology of their own; and it does not agree with the
Ceylonese. "The lifetime of Buddha from 1029 to 950 rests on his own
prophecy that a millennium would elapse from his death to the conversion
of China. If, therefore, Buddha was a true prophet, he must have lived
about 1000 B.C." (p. 266). But the date does not agree with the
Ceylonese chronology--ergo, Buddha was a false prophet. As to that other
"the first and most important link" in the Ceylonese as well as in the
Chinese chronology, "it is extremely weak." .... In the Ceylonese "a
miraculous genealogy had to be provided for Vijaya," and, "a prophecy
was therefore invented" (p. 269).
On these same lines of argument it may be argued that:
Since no genealogy of Jesus, "exact or inexact," is found in any of the
world's records save those entitled the Gospels of SS. Mathew (I--1-17),
and Luke (iii. 23--38); and, since these radically disagree--although
this personage is the most conspicuous in Western history, and the
nicest accuracy might have been expected in his case; therefore,
agreeably with Professor Max Muller's sarcastic logic, if Jesus "was a
true prophet," he must have descended from David through Joseph
(Matthew's Gospel); and "if he was a true prophet," again, then the
Christians "argue quite rightly that he must have" descended from David
through Mary (Luke's Gospel). Furthermore, since the two genealogies
are obviously discrepant and prophecies were, in this instance, truly
"invented" by the post-apostolic theologians [or, if preferred, old
prophecies of Isaiah and other Old Testament prophets, irrelevant to
Jesus, were adapted to suit his case--as recent English commentators (in
Holy Orders), the Bible revisers, now concede]; and since, moreover--
always following the Professor's argument, in the cases of Buddhist and
Brahmanical chronologies--Biblical chronology and genealogy are found to
be "traditional and full of absurdities .... every attempt to bring them
into harmony having proved a failure." (p. 266): have we or have we not
a certain right to retort, that if Gautama Buddha is shown on these
lines a false prophet, then Jesus must be likewise "a false prophet?"
And if Jesus was a true prophet despite existing confusion of
authorities, why on the same lines may not Buddha have been one?
Discredit the Buddhist prophecies and the Christian ones must go along
with them.
The utterances of the ancient pythoness now but provoke the scientific
smile: but no tripod ever mounted by the prophetess of old was so shaky
as the chronological trinity of points upon which this Orientalist
stands to deliver his oracles. Moreover, his arguments are
double-edged, as shown. If the citadel of Buddhism can be undermined
by Professor Max Muller's critical engineering, then pari passu that of
Christianity must crumble in the same ruins. Or have the Christians
alone the monopoly of absurd religious "inventions" and the right of
being jealous of any infringement of their patent rights?
To conclude, we say, that the year of Buddha's death is correctly stated
by Mr. Sinnett, "Esoteric Buddhism" having to give its chronological
dates according to esoteric reckoning. And this reckoning would alone,
if explained, make away with every objection urged, from Professor Max
Muller's "Sanskrit Literature" down to the latest "evidence"--the proofs
in the "Reports of the Archeological Survey of India." The Ceylonese
era, as given in Mahavansa, is correct in everything, withholding but
the above given fact of Nirvana, the great mystery of Samma-Sambuddha
and Abhidina remaining to this day unknown to the outsider; and though
certainly known to Bikshu Mahanama--King Dhatusena's uncle--it could not
be explained in a work like the Mahavansa. Moreover, the Singhalese
chronology agrees in every particular with the Burmese chronology.
Independent of the religious era dating from Buddha's death, called
"Nirvanic Era," there existed, as now shown by Bishop Bigandet ("Life of
Guadama"), two historical eras. One lasted 1362 years, its last year
corresponding with 1156 of the Christian era: the other, broken in two
small eras, the last, succeeding immediately the other, exists to the
present day. The beginning of the first, which lasted 562 years,
coincides with the year 79 A.D. and the Indian Saka era. Consequently,
the learned Bishop, who surely can never be suspected of partiality to
Buddhism, accepts the year 543 of Buddha's Nirvana. So do Mr. Tumour,
Professor Lassen, and others.
The alleged discrepancies between the fourteen various dates of Nirvana
collected by Csoma Corosi, do not relate to the Nyr-Nyang in the least.
They are calculations concerning the Nirvana of the precursors, the
Boddhisatwas and previous incarnations of Sanggyas that the Hungarian
found in various works and wrongly applied to the last Buddha.
Europeans must not forget that this enthusiast acted under protest of
the Lamas during the time of his stay with them: and that, moreover, he
had learned more about the doctrines of the heretical Dugpas than of the
orthodox Gelugpas. The statement of this "great authority (!) on
Tibetan Buddhism," as he is called, to the effect that Gautama had three
wives whom he names--and then contradicts himself by showing ("Tibetan
Grammar," p. 162, see note) that the first two wives "are one and the
same," shows how little he can be regarded as an "authority." He had
not even learned that "Gopa, Yasodhara and Utpala Varna" are the three
names for three mystical powers. So with the "discrepancies" of the
dates. Out of the sixty-four mentioned by him but two relate to Sakya
Muni--namely, the years 576 and 546--and these two err in their
transcription; for when corrected they must stand 564 and 543. As for
the rest they concern the seven ku-sum, or triple form of the Nirvanic
state and their respective duration, and relate to doctrines of which
Orientalists know absolutely nothing.
Consequently from the Northern Buddhists, who, as confessed by Professor
Weber, "alone possess these (Buddhist) Scriptures complete," and have
"preserved more authentic information regarding the circumstances of
their redaction"--the Orientalists have up to this time learned next to
nothing. The Tibetans say that Tathagata became a full Buddha--i.e.,
reached absolute Nirvana--in 2544 of the Kali era (according to
Souramana), and thus lived indeed but eighty years, as no Nirvanee of
the seventh degree can be reckoned among the living (i.e., existing)
men. It is no better than loose conjecture to argue that it would have
entered as little into the thoughts of the Brahmans to note the day of
Buddha's birth "as the Romans or even the Jews (would have) thought of
preserving the date of the birth of Jesus before he had become the
founder of a religion." (Max Muller's "Hist. S. L.") For, while the
Jews had been from the first rejecting the claim of Messiah-ship set up
by the Chelas of the Jewish prophet and were not expecting their Messiah
at that time, the Brahmans (the initiates, at any rate) knew of the
coming of him whom they regarded as an incarnation of Divine wisdom, and
therefore were well aware of the astrological date of his birth. If, in
after times, in their impotent rage they destroyed every accessible
vestige of the birth, life and death of Him, who in his boundless mercy
to all creatures had revealed their carefully concealed mysteries and
doctrines in order to check the ecclesiastical torrent of ever-growing
superstitions, yet there had been a time when he was met by them as an
Avatar. And, though they destroyed, others preserved.
The thousand and one speculations and the torturing of exoteric texts by
Archeologist or Paleographer will ill repay the time lost in their
study.
The Indian annals specify King Ajatasatru as a contemporary of Buddha,
and another Ajatasatru helped to prepare the council 100 years after his
death. These princes were sovereigns of Magadha and have naught to do
with Ajatasatru of the Brihad-Aranyaka and the Kaushitaki-Upanishad, who
was a sovereign of the Kasis; though Bhadrasena, "the son of Ajatasatru"
cursed by Aruni, may have more to do with his namesake the "heir of
Chandragupta" than is generally known, Professor Max Miller objects to
two Asokas. He rejects Kalasoka and accepts but Dharmasoka--in
accordance with "Greek" and in utter conflict with Buddhist chronology.
He knows not--or perhaps prefers to ignore--that besides the two Asokas
there were several personages named Chandragupta and Chandramasa.
Plutarch is set aside as conflicting with the more welcome theory, and
the evidence of Justin alone is accepted. There was Kalasoka, called by
some Chandramasa and by others Chandragupta, whose son Nanda was
succeeded by his cousin the Chandragupta of Seleucus, and under whom the
Council of Vaisali took place "supported by King Nanda" as correctly
stated by Taranatha. (None of them were Sudras, and this is a pure
invention of the Brahmans.) Then there was the last of the
Chandraguptas who assumed the name of Vikrama; he commenced the new era
called the Vikramaditya or Samvat and began the new dynasty at
Pataliputra, 318 (B.C.)--according to some European "authorities;" after
him his son Bindusara or Bhadrasena--also Chandragupta, who was followed
by Dharmasoka Chandragupta. And there were two Piyadasis--the
"Sandracottus" Chandragupta and Asoka. And if controverted, the
Orientalists will have to account for this strange inconsistency. If
Asoka was the only "Piyadasi" and the builder of the monuments, and
maker of the rock-inscriptions of this name; and if his inauguration
occurred as conjectured by Professor Max Muller about 259 B.C., in other
words, if he reigned sixty or seventy years later than any of the Greek
kings named on the Piyadasian monuments, what had he to do with their
vassalage or non-vassalage, or how was he concerned with them at all?
Their dealings had been with his grandfather some seventy years
earlier--if he became a Buddhist only after ten years occupancy of the
throne. And finally, three well-known Bhadrasenas can be proved, whose
names spelt loosely and phonetically, according to each writer's dialect
and nationality, now yield a variety of names, from Bindusara,
Bimbisara, and Vindusara, down to Bhadrasena and Bhadrasara, as he is
called in the Vayu Purana. These are all synonymous. However easy, at
first sight, it may seem to be to brush out of history a real personage,
it becomes more difficult to prove the non-existence of Kalasoka by
calling him "false," while the second Asoka is termed "the real," in the
face of the evidence of the Puranas, written by the bitterest enemies of
the Buddhists, the Brahmans of the period. The Vayu and Matsya Puranas
mention both in their lists of their reigning sovereigns of the Nanda
and the Morya dynasties. And, though they connect Chandragupta with a
Sudra Nanda, they do not deny existence to Kalasoka, for the sake of
invalidating Buddhist chronology. However falsified the now extant
texts of both the Vaya and Matsya Puranas, even accepted as they at
present stand "in their true meaning," which Professor Max Muller
(notwithstanding his confidence) fails to seize, they are not "at
variance with Buddhist chronology before Chandragupta." Not, at any
rate, when the real Chandragupta instead of the false Sandrocottus of
the Greeks is recognized and introduced. Quite independently of the
Buddhist version, there exists the historical fact recorded in the
Brahmanical as well as in the Burmese and Tibetan versions, that in the
year 63 of Buddha, Susinago of Benares was chosen king by the people of
Pataliputra, who made away with Ajatasatru's dynasty. Susinago removed
the capital of Magadha from Rajagriha to Vaisali, while his successor
Kalasoka removed it in his turn to Pataliputra. It was during the reign
of the latter that the prophecy of Buddha concerning Patalibat or
Pataliputra--a small village during His time--was realized. (See
Mahaparinibbana Sutta).
It will be easy enough, when the time comes, to answer all denying
Orientalists and face them with proof and document in hand. They speak
of the extravagant, wild exaggerations of the Buddhists and Brahmans.
The latter answer: "The wildest theorists of all are they who, to evade
a self-evident fact, assume moral, anti-national impossibilities,
entirely opposed to the most conspicuous traits of the Brahmanical
Indian character--namely, borrowing from, or imitating in anything,
other nations. From their comments on Rig Veda, down to the annals of
Ceylon, from Panini to Matouan-lin, every page of their learned scholia
appears, to one acquainted with the subject, like a monstrous jumble of
unwarranted and insane speculations. Therefore, notwithstanding Greek
chronology and Chandragupta--whose date is represented as 'the
sheet-anchor of Indian chronology' that 'nothing will ever shake'--it is
to be feared that as regards India, the chronological ship of the
Sanskritists has already broken from her moorings and gone adrift with
all her precious freight of conjectures and hypotheses. She is drifting
into danger. We are at the end of a cycle--geological and other--and at
the beginning of another. Cataclysm is to follow cataclysm. The pent-up
forces are bursting out in many quarters; and not only will men be
swallowed up or slain by thousands, 'new' land appear and 'old' subside,
volcanic eruptions and tidal waves appal; but secrets of an unsuspected
past will be uncovered to the dismay of Western theorists and the
humiliation of an imperious science. This drifting ship, if watched,
may be seen to ground upon the upheaved vestiges of ancient
civilizations, and fall to pieces. We are not emulous of the prophet's
honours: but still, let this stand as a prophecy."