DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.614#0026
XXVI , IBTTEODUCTIOS'.
Flagrant as is the exaggeration of the Hindus, it is
surpassed by that of the Buddhists. The Brahmadatta
who figures so largely, in their sacred writings, as king
of Benares1 very likely was not a mythe;2 hut there is
no ground for crediting that Gautama ever governed that
city at all, notwithstanding that they represent him to
have reigned there during nineteen several states of
existence.3 In a similar spirit, they assert, that, at the
same capital ruled, in turn, eighty-four thousand mon-
archs descended from Asoka.4 From these specimens it
is manifest that the Buddhist scriptures are little to be
trusted for throwing light on the history of Benares.
That Buddhism, or any Buddhist king, ever dominated
there is altogether problematical.
Some relevant details, scant, but interesting as far as
they go, are derivable from the itinerary of Hiouen
Thsang,5 a Buddhist pilgrim from China, who visited
may be, to a large extent, equally products of ignorant mistake and
misrepresentation. A good deal of weight has been allowed to
this inscription; and it has been, from time to time, honoured as a
piece of genuine historic evidence. Uncritically enough, I once fol-
lowed the herd, myself, in this respect: see the Journal of the Asiatic
Society of Bengal, for 1862, p. 8, first foot-note. It now appears to
me rash to see, in it, proof that Benares was subordinate to Gauda,
or anything else whatever claiming reliance.
1 Burnouf s Introduction a I'Mistoire du Buddhisme Indien, Vol. I.,
p. 140; and Mr. B. S. Hardy's Manual of Budldsm, p. 101.
2 Another king unknown to the Hindu records is spoken of by
the Buddhists. His name is Bhimasukla. See Ber Buddhismus,
translated from the Bussian of Professor Wassiljew, Part I., p. 54.
3 Mr. B. S. Hardy's Manual of BudJiism, p. 134.
4 So states the Bipavamsa. See the Journal of the Asiatic Society
of Bengal, for 1838, p. 927.
5 Memoires sur les Contrees Occidentals, Vol. I., pp. 353, et sea\.
Flagrant as is the exaggeration of the Hindus, it is
surpassed by that of the Buddhists. The Brahmadatta
who figures so largely, in their sacred writings, as king
of Benares1 very likely was not a mythe;2 hut there is
no ground for crediting that Gautama ever governed that
city at all, notwithstanding that they represent him to
have reigned there during nineteen several states of
existence.3 In a similar spirit, they assert, that, at the
same capital ruled, in turn, eighty-four thousand mon-
archs descended from Asoka.4 From these specimens it
is manifest that the Buddhist scriptures are little to be
trusted for throwing light on the history of Benares.
That Buddhism, or any Buddhist king, ever dominated
there is altogether problematical.
Some relevant details, scant, but interesting as far as
they go, are derivable from the itinerary of Hiouen
Thsang,5 a Buddhist pilgrim from China, who visited
may be, to a large extent, equally products of ignorant mistake and
misrepresentation. A good deal of weight has been allowed to
this inscription; and it has been, from time to time, honoured as a
piece of genuine historic evidence. Uncritically enough, I once fol-
lowed the herd, myself, in this respect: see the Journal of the Asiatic
Society of Bengal, for 1862, p. 8, first foot-note. It now appears to
me rash to see, in it, proof that Benares was subordinate to Gauda,
or anything else whatever claiming reliance.
1 Burnouf s Introduction a I'Mistoire du Buddhisme Indien, Vol. I.,
p. 140; and Mr. B. S. Hardy's Manual of Budldsm, p. 101.
2 Another king unknown to the Hindu records is spoken of by
the Buddhists. His name is Bhimasukla. See Ber Buddhismus,
translated from the Bussian of Professor Wassiljew, Part I., p. 54.
3 Mr. B. S. Hardy's Manual of BudJiism, p. 134.
4 So states the Bipavamsa. See the Journal of the Asiatic Society
of Bengal, for 1838, p. 927.
5 Memoires sur les Contrees Occidentals, Vol. I., pp. 353, et sea\.