[Footnote 30]: See for example the account in the Chullavagga, in S.B.E. Vol. XX. p. 78-79; Ind. Antiq. Vol. VIII, p. 313.
[Footnote 31]: Spence Hardy, Manual of Budhism, p. 225.
[Footnote 32]: S.B.E. Vol. XVII, pp. 108-117.
[Footnote 33]: The passage is given in the original by Oldenberg, Leitsch. der D. Morg. Ges. Bd. XXXIV, S. 749. Its significance in connection with the Jaina tradition as to their schisms has been overlooked until now. It has also been unnoticed that the assertion, that Vardhamâna died during Buddha's lifetime, proves that the latest account of this occurrence given by traditions 467 B.C. is false: Later Buddhist legends (Spence Hardy, Manual of Budhism, pp. 266-271) treat of Nâtaputta's death in more detail. In a lengthy account they give as the cause of the same the apostacy of one of his disciples, Upâli who was converted by Buddha. After going over to Buddhism, Upâli treated his former master with scorn, and presumed to relate a parable which should prove the foolishness of those who believed in false doctrines. Thereupon the Nigaṇṭha fell into despair. He declared his alms-vessel was broken, his existence destroyed, went to Pâva, and died there. Naturally no importance is to be given to this account and its details. They are apparently the outcome of sect-hatred.
[Footnote 34]: According to Jacobi's supposition, S.B.E. Vol. XXII, p. xvi, the error was caused, by the only disciple of Vardhamâna, who outlived his master, Sudharman being an Âgniveśyâyana.
[Footnote 35]: See for the history of Sîha related above, Spence Hardy, Manual of Budhism, pp. 226, 266, and Jacobi, Ind. Antiq. Vol. VIII, p. 161
[Footnote 36]: Beal, Si-yu-ki. Vol. II, p. 168.
[Footnote 37]: Turnour, Mahâvaṅsa, pp. 66-67 and p. 203, 206: Dîpavan[g]sa XIX 14; comp. also Kern, Buddhismus, Bd. I, S. 422. In the first passage in the Mahâvaṅ sa, three Nighaṇṭas are introduced by name, Jotiya, Giri, and Kumbhaṇḍa. The translation incorrectly makes the first a Brâhmaṇ and chief engineer.
[Footnote 38]: See Senart, Inscriptions de Piyadasi, tom. II, p. 82. Ed. VIII, l. 4. My translation differs from Senart's in some points especially in relation to the construction. Conf. Epigraphia Indiea, vol. II, pp. 272f.
[Footnote 39]: See Ind. Antiquary, vol. XX, pp. 361 ff.