[389] Burnouf, _loc. cit._ p. 157, 172. Lassen, "Ind. Alterth." 1, 581-585. [390] Burnouf, _loc. cit._ p. 138, 415. [391] Burnouf, _loc. cit._ p. 141, 149, 343. [392] Burnouf, _loc. cit._ p. 141. [393] Burnouf, _loc. cit._ p. 139, 140, 149. _Supra_, p. 173. [394] Burnouf, _loc. cit._ p. 236, 420. [395] Burnouf, _loc. cit._ p. 241, 244 ff. "Dhammapadam," translated by A. Weber, 322. [396] Burnouf, _loc. cit._ p. 223, 238. [397] Burnouf, _loc. cit._ p. 247. [398] Burnouf, _loc. cit._ p. 245, 246. [399] Burnouf, _loc. cit._ p. 240. [400] Burnouf, _loc. cit._ p. 146, 187. [401] Above, p. 95. Our chronology for the epochs of Indian history depends essentially on fixing two points. The first is the accession of Chandragupta in Magadha, already mentioned, from which the year 315 B.C. is certain (cp. _infra_); the second point is the year of Buddha's death. The Bhagavata-Purana puts Buddha's death 2000 years after the beginning of the Kaliyuga (_supra_, p. 77); such a round number and so general a date cannot lay claim to credibility. Besides this we have a number of other Brahmanic statements about the date of Buddha's life, varying more or less, but equally untrustworthy. More weight would naturally be ascribed to the statements of the Buddhists; yet even these differ widely from each other. The Thibetans have fourteen different statements about the year of Buddha's death, which cover the interval from 2422 to 546 or 544 B.C. The Chinese Buddhists as a rule assign Buddha's death to the year 950 B.C., but Buddhism did not reach the Chinese till after the birth of Christ. The most trustworthy statement seems to be that of the Singhalese. Buddhism reached them soon after the year 250 B.C.; from the year 161 B.C. their chronology agrees with existing inscriptions: their chronological system and their era is based on the year of Buddha's death, which they place in 543 B.C. If this date is compared with the Brahmanic list of kings of Magadha we get the following results: Before Chandragupta the dynasty of the Nandas reigned for 88 years according to the Brahmanic accounts, and 22 according to the Singhalese. On this point I agree with Lassen and Gutschmid in preferring the statement of the Brahmans, because the error of the Singhalese may very easily have arisen from the fact that the reign of 22 years, which they give to the sons of Kalaçoka, was incorrectly repeated for the following dynasty. According to this the first Nanda ascended the throne of Magadha in the year 403 (315+88). From this year the items on the Singhalese list carry us up to the year 665 B.C. for the accession of Kshemadharman (Çiçunaga), and the year 603 B.C. for the commencement of the reign of Bimbisara (Gutschmid, "Beiträge," s. 79 ff.), who is succeeded by Ajataçatru eight years before Buddha's Nirvana ("Mahavança," 2, 32, p. 10, ed. Turnour), which thus falls in the year 543 B.C. If we keep to the Singhalese date for the Nanda dynasty, we arrive at the year 477 B.C.