how the year 1 of the religious era, the year of the nirvâna itself, can correspond to any but B. C. 544.
General Cunningham places the nirvâna of Buddha in 477 B. C.; Turnour adopts 543. It were much to be desired that so important a date be submitted to the most rigid scrutiny, and the causes of the discrepancies, if possible, ascertained, or at least indicated, before its final adoption. Further elucidation of this point has since appeared in Volume III of General Cunningham’s reports.
The classical accounts of Pâṭaliputra are very meagre. Strabo, on the authority of Erastosthenes (Volume III, Falconer’s and Hamilton’s Translations, page 79), states its distance from the mouths of the Ganges at 6,000 stadia, and that the river flows "past Palibothra, a very large city" (page 80). Further on (page 97), Strabo, describing Pâṭaliputra (it is supposed on the authority of Megasthenes), states that it is situated at the confluence of the Ganges and another river; that it is in length 80 stadia, and in breadth 15. It is in the shape of a parallelogram surrounded by a wooden wall pierced with openings through which arrows may be discharged. In front is a ditch which serves the purpose of defence and of a sewer for the city.
From Pliny it appears that Palibothra was situated 425 Roman miles below the junction of the Ganges and the Jamna.
Pâṭaliputra was situated on the right bank of the Ganges, and at the confluence of a large river with it. "This river was named Erranoboas according to Arrian (who had his intelligence from Megasthenes’ Journal), and was of the third degree of magnitude among Indian rivers, and inferior to none but the Ganges and the Indus" (Rennel’s Memorandum, 49).
From all these accounts and the close resemblance of name, it is clear that Palibothra and Pâṭaliputra are identical, and indeed at present there is no question about it. But it is by no means quite so clear that the Erranoboas, the Hiranyavaha and the Son are identical; on the contrary, if the city of Palibothra stood at the confluence of the Ganges and the Erranoboas, and if its site now be correctly represented by Patna, then it would appear that the Son and the Erranoboas are distinct rivers.
Both Pliny and Arrian mention the Son and the Erranaboas as distinct rivers, and this objection to their identity is so strong that it has been noticed by Professor Wilson
