2 
E. Thomas— Jainism. 
[Jan. 
cussion, you will, perhaps, allow me to advert in your columns to a very 
important item, bearing upon the relative priority of the creeds of Jainism 
and Buddhism which has not hitherto been noticed ; that is to say, liow 
their reputed dates balance and adjust themselves inter se within the bounds 
of reasonable probability. 
The Jains have a fixed and definite date for the Nirvana of “ Mahavi- 
ra,” their great saint, which is established by the concurrent testimony of 
their two sects, whose method of reckoning varies in itself, thereby secur¬ 
ing, as it were, a double entry. The Svetambaras date in the era of Vikra- 
maditya, 57 B. C. ; the Digambaras reckon by the Saka samvat, 78 A. D , 
and both arrive at the same figures of B. C. 52G-7 for the death of Mahavi- 
ra. This calculation is equally supported by the dynastic lists, which satis¬ 
factorily fill in the period from the accession of “ Palaka, the lord of 
Avanti, [who] was anointed in that night in which.Mahavira entered 
Nirvana,” “ to the four years of Saka,” who immediately preceded Vikra- 
maditya.* 
On the other hand, Buddha’s date varies according to different authori¬ 
ties from the extreme points of B. C. 2420 to 453, and even is reduced so 
low-as 370 B. C. ; so that up to this time modern inquirers have been una¬ 
ble to concur in the determination of this epochf further than to suspect, 
as we are taught by the Chinese, that the period was antedated from time 
to time, with the direct purpose of arrogating priority over other saints. 
Now, if the ascertained Jain date will serve to determine the era of 
Buddha, under the theory that Buddha himself was a disciple of Mahavira, 
it will, in the fact, go far to establish the priority of the latter, and the 
pre-existence of the creed of which he was the twenty-fourth or last pro¬ 
phet. 
The date of Buddha most largely accepted has been adopted from the 
Ceylon annals, which supply the figures 543 B. C.J But, as was remarked 
by Mr. Tumour, who first investigated the local traditions, the accep¬ 
tance of such a date involved an error, in default of the required period of 
sixty years (sixty-six) ; or, to use his own words, “ the discrepancy can 
only proceed from one of these two sources ; viz., either it is an intentional 
perversion, adopted to answer some national or religious object, which is 
not readily discoverable ; or Chandra Gupta is not identical with Sandra- 
* Dr. Biihler, ‘ Indian Antiquary,’ Yol. II, 3G3; J. E. A. S., IX, 15, note 2. 
f Prof. Wilson, J. E. A. S., XVI, 247; see also IX, n. s. 170; Beal, ‘Travels of 
Bah-Hian,’ pp. xxvi. 22 ; and Hioun-Thsang- (Paris, 1857), I, p. 163. 
X Lassen; St. Hilaire; M. Barth, Revue Critique, 13th June, 1874; Prof. Weber, 
‘ History of Indian Literature’ (London, Triibner, 1878), p. 287 ; Childers, Pali Dic¬ 
tionary. I myself am only a recent convert, J. E. A. S., I. 463, 
