4 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 Se