Contemporaneity and Chronology of Mahavira and Buddha

Author(s): Nagrajmuni, Mahendramuni
Publisher: Today and Tomorrows Book Agency
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/006721/1

Page #1

THE
CONTEMPORANEITY AND THE CHRONOLOGY
OF
MAHĀVİRA AND BUDDHA

Page #2

BY THE SAME AUTHOR
1. Jain Philosophy and Modern Science 2. The Anuvrat Ideology 3. Light of Inspiration 4. Pity and Charity in the New Pattern of Society 5. Pen Sketch of Acharya Shri Tulsi 6. The Strides of the Anuvrat Movement 7. Glimpses of Terapanth 8. Glimpses of Anuvrat

Page #3

THE
CONTEMPORANEITY AND THE CHRONOLOGY
OF
MAHĀVĪRA AND BUDDHA
Ву MUNI SHRI NAGRAJJI, D. LITT.
Anuvrat-Adviser
Foreword By DR. BISHESHWAR PRASAD Head of the Department of History
University of Delhi
Edited and Translated
Ву MUNI SHRI MAHENDRA KUMARJI ‘DVITEEYA'
B.Sc. (Hons.)
TODAY AND TOMORROW'S BOOK AGENCY 22B/5, ORIGINAL ROAD, DEV NAGAR KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI-5
1970

Page #4

Publishers
Today and Tomorrow's Book Agency 22B/5, Original Road, Dev Nagar Karol Bagh, New Delhi-5
Rajendera Kumar Jain
August 1970 Price: Fifteen Rupees
Printed by
R. K, Printers, Kamla Nagar, Delhi

Page #5

FOREWORD
Historical scholarship in India has made considerable progress, yet many unresolved problems continue to face the students of our past history. Paucity of source material and inadequate assessment of the canonical and other literature have limited the scope and extent of enquiry. For the ancient period of Indian history, in the absence of conventional sources such as chronicles, official records and other documents, our basis of knowledge gets confined to religious writings, literature and epigraphic evidence. These data might provide adequate frame work for the understanding of cultural and social developments in that age, but certainly are unable to throw sufficient light on chronology or sequence of events with any preciseness. For this reason even today we are unable to fix the dates of rulers or dynasties precisely, or to indicate definitely the age of leaders of thought and great religious reformers. Because of this handicap, the study of the history of ideas is also considerably affected and it may not be possible always to determine the relationship between one set of ideas and another with any definiteness. This drawback has led to speculations and considerable confusion and vagueness in the interpretation of history of India.
Two mighty movements flourished about the same time in one region and influenced the mind and behaviour of large masses of people both in India and abroad. Their progenitors, Mahavira and Buddha, acquired fame in later ages and have left behind them the two religions, Jainism and Buddhism, which had great impact on the life and thought of the people in India. Yet, unfortunately, our knowledge about them is still meagre and has been derived from not very direct and unimpeachable sources.

Page #6

Mahavira and Buddha
Even today there is a mysterious uncertainty about their date of birth and death and the period of their mission. It is largely believed that they were contemporaries and that their field of action was the region of Bihar. But we have no information whether they ever met and what was the attitude of the one towards the other. The philosophy which permeated their teachings is fundamentally the same, yet it is impossible now to say whether one derived inspiration from the other or both of them drew from the same source. If both of them flourished in the same period and their thought had independent origin and growth, then there must have been certain features in the contemporary society which prompted both of them to raise their voice against the common evils. History has to supply answers to these and similar other questions which arise in the mind of an enquiring devotee of the Muse of History.
Muni Shri Nagarajji has presented a well-reasoned analysis of the problem of the contemporaneity of Mahavira and Buddha. He has critically examined the existing theories propounded by foreign and Indian scholars, and on the basis of the evidence contained in canonical literature of the Jains and Buddhists, has come to the conclusion that Mahavira was the senior of the two, who was born earlier, took to his mission earlier and attained the Nirvana earlier than Buddha. His dissertation is full of critical examination and interpretation of established literary evidence. He has drawn upon Jaina source liberally and these have a richness which make them highly valuable for students of history. I congratulate Muniji on his production which I am certain will provoke scientific study of the problem of chronology of social and cultural movements and unfold the sources of inspiration and the socio-economic and other factors which gave them birth. The book fills a gap and will fulfil a great purpose. The learned Muni has brought to bear his erudition, critical

Page #7

Foreword
vii
judgement and dispassionate objectivity on the exposition of a difficult problem. It is all the more creditable that he has not allowed his religious bias to affect his conclusions and has relied on logic and concrete evidence in substantiating his point. The book is a distinct contribution to knowledge.
BISHESHWAR PRASAD Head of the Department of History
University of Delhi
11 May 1967

Page #8

Page #9

PREFACE
The philosophical and historical aspects of Jain and Buddhist traditions have been my subject of interest for over a number of years. Some time ago, the editor of Jaina Bharati received a letter from Sri Kastur Chandji Banthia, in which he had written : "I was surprised to read in Muni Šri Nathmalji's book, Jaina Darsana ke Maulika Tattva, that Mahā vīra was older than Buddha. I tried to get it clarified by some evidence but to no avail. Again, Muni Sri Nagrājji has emphasized this viewpoint in an article entitled "Bhagvana Sri Mahāvīra aur Gautama Buddha,' in your quarterly, “Lord Mahāvīra was older than Gautama Buddha. When Lord Buddha started preaching, Lord Mahāvira had already done a good deal of work in that field.'
“Lord Mahāvīra lived seventy-two years on this earth, while Gautama Buddha attained the Nirvana at the age of eighty. No historian has so far doubted the veracity of these facts. Of course, the question, as to which of the two attained the Nirvāna first, has aroused fierce controversy amongst historians. If it is agreed that Mahāvīra was older than Buddha, then we have to accept the view that the former predeceased latter. But the late Dr. Hermann Jacobi in the last article of his life “The Nirvāna of Buddha and Mahāvīra and the Contemporary Political Conditions in Magadha' had conclusively proved by citing the Jaina Agamas (canons) that Mahāvira lived some years (probably seven years) even after the Nirvana of Buddha. Mahavira attained omniscience at the age of forty-two and after that he preached for almost thirty years. On the other hand, Buddha attained enlightenment at the age of thirty-six and Nirvāna when he was eighty years old. Thus Buddha

Page #10

Mahavira and Buddha
in all preached for over a period of forty-four years. Now if, according to Dr. Jacobi, Mahavira attained the Nirvana seven years later than Buddha, how is it possible that Mahāvīra had already done a good deal of preaching even before Buddha ?
"Relying on the Uvavai Sutra, one of the thirty-two canons accepted by the Terapantha Sect, Dr. Jacobi has tried to refute the erroneous theory of some of the Western scholars based on (i) the Samagama Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya, (ii) the Pasadika Suttanta of the Majjhima Nikāya, and (iii) the Sangitipariyaya Suttanta of the Digha Nikaya. Therefore, the untenable notion of the Terapantha sect stands to scrutiny. It is not without significance that Mahāvīra himself said in the Bhagavati Sūtra that he would live for sixteen years after the death of Gośalaka and that the Mahasilä kanṭaka and Rathamusala wars were fought by Konika, just after he became the king of Magadha. The first war was spoken of as a 'finality' by Gośālaka. Moreover, according to the Buddhists, Buddha attained the Nirvana in the eighth year of Ajatsatru's (Konika's) reign.
*
"In spite of all these evidences to the contrary, it is beyond my comprehension how Terapanthis continue to hold to their rigid belief. It verily needs an explanation....It will be in the fitness of things if you publish an article detailing the evidence and the reasons for the said belief."
I received this letter during my chaturmasa at Saradarasahara in Vikrama Samvat 2019 (i.e. in 1962). At that time I was extremely busy in my usual literary pursuits and in seasonal festivities. Simultaneously, I was carrying on the onerous responsibility of giving religious instruction to 1500 Jain families of Saradarasahara. The result was that I could not give any serious thought to the above-mentioned letter. However, a copy of the same was sent to Acharya Sri Tulsi, at Udaipur, by Jaina Bharat quarterly of the Jain Svetambara Terapanthi Maha

Page #11

Preface
sabha. The Acharya asked for my opinion on the subject. Meanwhile, the pressure of work at my hand decreased and I was able to devote some time to the writing of the present book.
Sri Banthia has expressed surprise that, in spite of much evidence, the Teräpanthi Sect continues to hold on to its particular opinion. As a matter of fact, it is not at all a question of sectarian belief. None of the fundamental principles or concepts of Terapantha will in any way be violated by accepting Mahāvīra's seniority to Buddha or vice versa. The view expressed by Muni Šri Nathamalji and me, that Māhavira was older than Buddha, was based on the Jaina and Buddhist traditions, while Muni Sri Nathamalji's theory as propounded in his work Jaina Darśana ke Maulika Tattva, that Buddha flourished forty years after Mahāvīra, was only an acceptance of someone else's conviction. However, the procedure followed in the present study has been that of unbiased investigation measured on the yardstick of pure historical facts.
The 2500th anniversary of the Mahāpariniry a of Lord Buddha, celebrated on the full moon in May 1956, was observed on the basis of chronology as described in the Ceylonese chronicle, Mahāvamsa. Though various schools of Buddhism have their different systems of chronology, yet they were in unison to celebrate the festival?. Interestingly enough, some sects consider the full moon day of the lunar month of Vaisākha to be the day of Buddha's birth, enlightenment and Nirvāņa, while others agree with regard to the day of Buddha's birth and enlightenment but differ from them regarding the day of Buddha's Nirvāņa. In their opinion, Buddha attained Nirvāņa on the full moon day of the lunar month of Kārtika. In spite of all these differences, almost all the Buddhist countries observed the 2500th anniversary of Buddha's Nirvāņa
1. Cf. 2500 Years of Buddhism, “Foreword” by Dr. Radhakrishnan, p. 1

Page #12

Mahavira and Buddha
with great enthusiasm, giving added importance to the universal glory of Buddhism.
According to the traditional Nirvāņa era of Mahā vīra, 2500 years from Mahāvīra's Nirvāna will be completed in 1974 A.D. Since no sect or sub-sect of Jainism has any differences regarding the date of the anniversary, it is essential on the part of the whole Jain community to celebrate this occasion in a systematic and well-organized manner.
I would be failing in my duty if I were not to mention the immense help that my colleague Muni Mahendra Kumarji “Dviteeya’ rendered in the writing of the present volume. I also owe a debt of gratitude to Shri Sampat Kumar Gadhaiya, and Muni Mahendra Kumarji, ‘Pratham' for the collection and sifting of valuable material. I am equally grateful to those authors, historians and scholars whose books and articles have been liberally referred to elucidate the present work.
MUNI NAGRAJ
Bhiksu Bodhi Sthala Rajanagara (Rajasthan) 27 July 1963

Page #13

EDITOR'S NOTE
Although Mahāvīra and Buddha shine like two resplendent luminaries on the firmament of Indian history, yet it is suiprising that the computation of their contemporaneity and chronology has remained so dim. The complexity of the problem can be easily gauged by the conflicting opinion expressed by renowned scholars. Dr. R.C. Majumdar, Dr. H.C. Raychaudhuri, Dr. K.K. Dattal and Dr. Radha Kumud Mookerjee assert that Mahāvīra was senior to Buddha and attained Nirvāna before the latter. However, Dr. Harmann Jacobil and Jarl Charpentier4 hold the contrary view. On the other hand, Dr. Hoernle5 and Dr. K.P. Jayaswalo think that Mahāvīra was junior to Buddha but he attained Nirvāņa before the latter.
Much more complicated, in any case, is the problem of the date of Buddha's Nirvāna, on which historians have frequently commented. Pandit Bhagwan Lal Inderji? places it in the seventh century B.C., while Dr. Vincent A. Smith' and Dr. Radha Kumud Mookerjee regard this event to be occurring in the sixth century B.C. Dr. R.C. Majumdar, Dr. H.C. Ray
1. An Advanced History of India, Part I, pp. 85-86. 2. Hindu Sabhyata, pp. 216–224. 3. Hindi translation of Dr. Jacobi's article in German in Sramana
(Monthly), Vol. XIII, No, VII, p. 10. 4. Indian Antiquary 1914, pp. 195-196; The Cambridge History of India,
Vol. I, pp. 139-140. 5. Hastings, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. I, p. 264. 6. Journal of Bihar and Orissa Research Society, Vol. XIII, p. 246. 7. Cf, Muni Kalyana Vijayaji, Vira Nirvana Samvat aura Jaina Kala
ganana, p. 155. 8. Early History of India, 46-47. 9. Hindu Sabhyata, p. 223,

Page #14

xiv
Mahāvīra and Buddha
chaudhuri and Dr. K.K. Dattat hold that Buddha attained Nirvāna in the fifth century B.C. Dr. E.J. Thomas goes to the extent of saying that Buddha's Nirvāna took place in the fourth century B.C. and in this he has also been supported by a Japanese scholar. An authoritative scholar of Buddhism, Dr. Rhys Davids, reviewing this subject in The Cambridge History of India writes:3 “Unfortunately, even after all that has been written on the subject of the early Buddhist chronology, we are still uncertain as to the exact date of Buddha's death. The date 483 B.C. which is adopted in this history must still be regarded as provisional.”
Muni Sri Nagarājji, the author of this volume, has waded through the mass of canonical literature of the Jains and the Buddhists (popularly known as Agamas and Tripitakas) to arrive at the contemporaneity of Mahāvīra and Buddha. It is unfortunate that historians had so far ignored these important works and had instead relied on later literary contributions, the veracity of which is doubted. That is why Dr. Vincent A. Smith was constrained to remark in The Early History of India : "The sacred books of the Jaina sect, which are still very imperfectly known, also contain numerous historical statements and allusions of considerable value.
“The Jataka or birth stories and other books of the Buddhist canons includes many incidental references to the political condition of India in the fifth and the sixth centuries B.C., which although not exactly contemporary with the event alluded to, certainly transmit genuine historical tradition.”
1. An Advanced History of India, p. 88. 2. Recently Dr. E. J. Thomas has pointed out (B. C. Law Commemo
ration Volume, II, pp. 18-22) that, according to Saravastiyadin, Ashoka flourished about a century after Buddha's Nirvana. This
even borne out in the Sinhalese chronicles and a Japanese scholar quoted by Thomas places this even in 386 B.C. 3. Vol. I, p. 152.

Page #15

Editor's Note
XV
“The chronicles of Ceylon in the Pāli language, of which the Dīpavamsa dating probably from the fourth century after Christ, and the Mahāvaṁsa, about a century and a half later in date, are the best known, offer several discrepent versions of early Indian tradition, chiefly concerning the Maurya dynasty. These Sinhalese stories, the value of which is sometimes overestimated, demand cautious criticism at least as much as do other records of popular and ecclesiastical traditions."
Muni Sri Nagrājji has also proved that the Ceylonese chronicles have not been used with “cautious criticism.” This lack of caution, to say the least, is responsible for the intricacy of the problem. These chionicles show obvious inconsistencies as compared to the original Buddhist canons, the Tripitakas. As for example, according to the Mahāyamsa, Buddha attained Niryāna in the eighth year of Ajātsatru's reign. The historians have accepted this belief without examining it critically. But the events of the life of Buddha, as described in the Tripitakas, clearly imply that Ajātšatru's, accession had already taken place during the first twenty years of Buddha's life after his enlightenment. It means that Buddha must have lived at least for another twenty-five years after the accession of Ajātaśatru. For, according to the Samannyaphala Sutta of the Dīgha Nikāya, Ajātaśatru (King of Magadha) only once called on Buddha? during a “rainy season” passed in Räjag?ha. However, the Althakathā of the Anguttara Nikāya tells us that Buddha passed the second, third, fourth, seventeenth and twentieth "rainy season," after the enlightenment, at Rājagrha. Of the forty-six "rainy seasons,” the remaining twenty-five were spent at Srāvasti and the last at Vaišali. Then, how is it possible that Ajātaśatru's accession took place only seven or eight years before Buddha's Nirvāṇa and
1. Pp. 10-12 2. Cf. Rhys Davids, Buddhist India, p. 88,

Page #16

xvi
Mahāvīra and Buddha
that he met Buddha only seven or eight years before his Nirvana. The Muni in this treatise has given a critical and careful evaluation of such inconsistencies. Though the main object of the present study is to decide “the contemporaneity and chronology of Mahāvīra and Buddha," the author has also discussed the chronology of kings right from Siśunāga to Chandragupta Maurya. He has even refuted some of the misconceptions regarding the Nanda period. Not only that, he has also brought into light a number of unknown facts connected with the Jain and Buddhist traditions : Pāvā, where Mahāvīra attained Nirvāṇa, is a village situated in North Bihar and not in South Bihar ; Ajātaśatru was a follower of Māhavīra and merely a patron of Buddha ; origin of the schism in the Jain Church resulting in the creation of Svetāmbara and Digambara sects.
The exhilaration which I have felt and the knowledge I have gained have, undoubtedly, richly compensated me for the effort involved in the editing of this volume. The task of translating was not an easy one, as there were a number of technical terms in Jainism and Buddhism, which needed a fair amount of explanation. At the same time, I had to study lhe English rendering of the Jain and Buddhist canons by scholars like Dr. Jacobi, Dr. Rhys Davids, Mrs. Rhys Davids, E.M. Hare, F.L. Woodward, and I.B. Horner.
I thank Muni Sri Mahendra Kumarji ‘Pratham' for his valuable guidance in carrying out this work. I am also thankful to Mr. Sohan Lal Gandhi of the Gulabpura High School for his commendable participation in the work of translation.
MUNI MAHENDRA KUMAR 'DVITEEYA'
7 September 1963

Page #17

CONTENTS
I. Introduction II. View of Foreign Scholars
Dr. Jacobi's First Approach The First Review The Date of Mahavira's Nirvana The Date of Buddha's Nirvana
III. Dr. Jacobi's Second Approach
The Last Essay? The Quintessence of Dr. Jacobi's Essay Ajātastru in the Buddhist Pitakas Konika in Jain tradition Pāvā, the place of Mahāvīra's Nirvana Āgamas and Tripițakas in relation to the
Contemporary Conditions The Date of Mahāvıra's Nirvana The Date of Buddha's Nirvana Inconsistencies Conclusion Pandit Sukha Lalji and Other Scholars Dr. Charpentier
IV. Dr. K. P. Jayaswal
Mahāvīra's Nirvana and Vikrmāditya A Critique Dr. Radha Kumud Mukherjee Dr. Kamta Prasad Jain Dharmānanda Kaušāmbi Dr, Hoernle and Muni Jina Vijayji

Page #18

xviii
Mahavira and Buddha
V. Muni Kalyana Vijayaji
A Critique Mahāvīra Middle-aged, Buddha young Testimony of the Later Works Contradictions Shri Vijayendra Suri Dr. Shanti Lal Shah Shri Shrichand Rampuria
VI. Historians' view
A Critique
VII. Research and conclusion
Need of an Exhaustive Research The Evidence of the Buddhist Tripitakas The Event of Mahāvira's Nirvana in
Tripitakas A Critical Examination The Events of Mahāvīra's Seniority in
Buddhist Tripițak as A Critical Examination Contemporaniety and Chronology Chronology of Mahävira The Vikrama Era : The Saka Era The Gupta Era Astrological Calculations Traditional Era of Vīra Nirvana Chronology of Mahavira's Life Traditional Dates of Buddha's Nirvana Historians' Date of Buddha's Nirvana Problem of Chronology Reconstruction of Chronology

Page #19

Contents
xix
108 115 121 121
122
123
133
Inconsistencies in Ceylonese Chronology
Chronology of Buddha VIII. Corroboration of the Conclusion
1. Tibetan tradition 2. The Traditional Date of Chinese
Turkestan 3. Asoka's Edicts
4. Burmese Tradition Appendix I The Chronological List of Rainy
season Passed by Mahā vira after His
Attainment of Omniscience, Appendix II The Chronological List of Rainy
seasons Passed by Buddha after His
Enlightenment. Bibliography Index
139
141 143
155

Page #20

Page #21

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION Man is curious by nature. Curiosity adds to his knowledge and knowledge increases curiosity. In this cycle of knowledge and curiosity lies the boundless joy of life. It is these two that lead unfailingly to truth. When history first took up the question of Mahāvīra and Buddha, the two were regarded as identical by some scholars.1 Others identified Buddha with Gautma Svāmi, the chief disciple of Mahāvīra. But a little investigation proved
1. Scholars, like Prof. Lassen regarded Buddha and Mahāvīra as
identical, because the Jain and Euddhist traditions are almost identical on some points (cf. the Gaina Sūtras, Sacred Books of
the East, Vol. XXII, introduction, p. XIX.) 2. According to the Jains, the chief disciple of their Tirihankara
Mahāvīra was called Gautma Svāmi (Ward's Hindus II p. 247, and Colebrooke's Essays, Vol. II p. 279) or Gautama Indrabhūti, whose identity with Gautama Buddha was suggested both by Dr. Hamilton and Major Delamaine and was accepted by Colebrooke.
“This is what Colebrooke says in his Essays, Vol. II p. 276. In the Kalpa Sūtra and in other books of the Jains, the first of Mahavira's disciples is mentioned under the name of Indrabhūti, but in the inscriptions under that of Gautama Svāmi. The names of the other ten precisely agree, whence it is to be concluded that Gautama, the first one of the first list, is the same with Indrabhuti, the first of the second list. It is certainly probable, as remarked by Dr. Hamilton and Major Delamaine, that the Gautama of the Jains and the Gautama of the Buddists is the same personage. Two out of eleven disciples of Mahāvīre survived him, viz. Sudharma and Gautama Svāmi. Sudharma's spiritual successors are the Jain priests, whereas the Gautama's followers are the Buddhists."
-Manmath Nath Shastri, M.A.M.R.A.S., Buddha : His life. His Teachings, His Order, 1910 (Second Edition), p. 21-22.

Page #22

Mahāvīra and Buddha
very soon that Mahāvīra and Buddha, though belonging to the same generation and country, were two distinct personalities, the former having lived on this earth for 72 years' and latter for 80 years.
Next, curiosity led the people to ask the question : How long did Mahāvīra and Buddha live as contemporaries and who was the older of the two ? This question has drawn the attention of many a thinker and till now numerous efforts have been made to solve it. A good deal of new light has been thrown on it, but the conclusions reached are not indisputable. The various events described in the Jain Agamas, the Buddhist Tripitakas and the historical works, which appear to be inconsistent with one another have led the scholars to diverse conclusions. The classification of the efforts made so far, their critical examination and a humble effort to push the subject to an indubitable stage on the basis of independent thinking, form the subject matter of the present critique (this essay).
1. Digha Nikäya, Mahāparinirvāņa Sutta, 2-3-16. 2. Kalpa Sutra, 147.

Page #23

CHAPTER II
VIEWS OF FOREIGN SCHOLARS
We shall first take up the views of Dr. H. Jacobi. Dr. Jacobi's First Approach
It was late Dr. Hermann Jacobi, who first took the lead in making a significant effort in this direction. Dr. Jacobi had added greatly to his credit by having translated four of the Jain canons viz. The Ācārānga Sūtra, the Kalpa Sūtra, the Sūtrakrtānga Sūtra and the Uttarādlıyayana Sūtra. These translations wese published in two volumes in the Sacred Books of the East Series”, edited by Max Müller, an outstanding scholar of oriental learning. Besides this, Dr. Jacobi has also rendered other valuable services to Jainism. We owe the credit to him for having brought Lord Pārśva Nātha, the 23rd Tirtharikara in the category of historical personalities. The fallacy prevalent in the field of history that Jainism was nothing but a branch of Buddhism, was also disembroiled mainly by Dr. Jacobit. He also visited India twice in order to be able to get first
2.
1. Although Dr. Jarl Charpentier first dealt with the subject specially
with a view to decide the chronology of Buddha and Mahavira, but Dr. Jacobi is responsible for the primary research in this field. There are 50 volumes in this series, out of these the Vol. XXII contains the translations of the Acērāniga Sätra and the Kalpa Sutra, and the Vol. XLV contains the translations of the
Satrakrtānga Sutra and the U.taradhyayana Sutra. 3. Sacred Books of the East, Vol. XLV, Introduction to the Jain
Sūtras Part II p. XXI, 1894. 4. Sacred Books of the East Vol. XXII, Introduction to the Jain
Sūtras Part I, pp. IX to XIX, 1884.

Page #24

Mahāvīra and Buddha hand knowledge of the Jain traditions in vogue. He established direct contact with many Jain Acharyas during his visit to this country.
Dr. Jacobi has referred to the controversy about the dates of the Nirvāṇa of Mahāvīra and Buddha at two different places and both the descriptions contradict each other. In one review he depicts Mahāvīra as having predeceased Buddha and vice versa in the other.
The First Review
His first review appeared in his Introduction to the Ācārānga Sūtra in 1884. Describing the events associated with the lives of Mahāvīra and Buddha he writes: “We shail now put side by side the principal events of Buddha's and Mahāvīra's lives in order to demonstrate their difference. Buddha was born in Kapilavastu, Mahāvīra, in a village near Vaiśāli ; Buddha's mother died after his birth, Mahāvīra's parents lived to see him a grown up man; Buddha turned ascetic during the life time and against the will of his father, Mahāyīra did so after the death of his parents and with the consent of those in power : Buddha led a life of austerties for 6 years, Mahāvīra for 12; Buddha thought these years wasted time, and that all his penances were useless for attaining his end, Mahāvīra was convinced of the necessity of his penances and persevered some of them even after becoming a Tirtharkara.
Amongst Buddha's opponents Gośāla Mamkhaliputta is by no means so prominent as amongst Mahāvīra's nor
1. During his second visit to India (March 1914) he met Acharya
Śri Kälugani, the 8th Acharya of Terapanth Sect and held
important discussions with him for three days. 2. S.B.E. Vol. XXII, Introduction, pp. XVII, XVIII.

Page #25

Views of Foreign Scholars among the former do we meet “Gāmālī, who caused the first Schism in Jain Church. All the disciples of Buddha bear different names to those of Mahāvīra. To finish this enumeration of differences, Buddha died in Kusinagar, whereas Mahāvīra died in 'Pāvā', avowedly before the former".
Dr. Jacobi has absolutely omitted the mention of evidences supporting his belief nor has he reviewed the dates of the birth and death of both. Hence it is difficult to infer his view about the contemporaniety of Mahāvīra and Buddha.
The Date of Mahāvīra's Nirvāņa
The allusions occurring in both the volumes of the Jain Sūtras edited by Dr. Jacobi bear testimony to the fact that he regarded 526 B.C. as the date of Mahāvīra's Nirvana. He writes. “The recordation of the Jains canon or the Siddhānia took place, according to the unanimous tradition in the council of Vallabhi' under the presidency of Devardhi. The date of this event 980 (or 993) A.V.? corresponding to 454 (or 467) A.D. is incorporated in the Kalpa Sūtra, ($148).” “This extract confirms the fact that Dr. Jacobi has accepted 526 B.C. as the date of Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa, for we get 980 and 993 respectively only after adding 454 and 467 to 526. He has repeated the same fact, incidentally, in his introduction to the second volume of the Jaina Sūtras edited by him.3 It was written in 1894 A.D. i.e. ten years after the introduc·tion, he wrote the first volume. We come across one more allusion in that introduction which indisputably confirms
1. S.B.E Vol. XXII, Introduction, p. XXXVII. 2. A.V. means "after the death of Vira" (i.e., Mahāvīra). 3. S.B.E. Vol. XIV, Introduction, p. XI.

Page #26

Mahāvīra and Buddha
526 B.C. as the date of Mahāvīra's Nirvăna, Dr. Jacobi writes: “Khaluya Rohagutta of the Kaușika Gotra with whom originated the six schisms of the Jains, established Trairašika Matam in 544 A.V. (18 A.D.)”. Here too, we get 18 A.D. only after substracting 526 from 544. The Date of Buddha's Nirvāņa
Similarly Dr. Jacobi has not referred to any specific date about the birth or death of Buddha in these Introductions, but whatever he has written there, even though in different allusions, reflect his idea about the date of Buddha's Nirvāṇa. For instance, he writes quoting Max Müllar's extract that the lastest date of Buddhist canon at the time of the Second Council was 377 B.C.” It is an unanimously accepted fact that this Council was held at Vaiśāli, 100 years after the Nirvāņa of Buddha. It follows that 477 B.C. is the date of Buddha, Nirvāṇa in the opinion of Dr. Jocobi on the basis of his concept at that time. If these were the dates of the Nirvana of Mahāvīra and Buddha, Mahāvīra was 41 years older than Buddha.
1. S.B.E., Vol. XLV. Introduction, p. XXXVII, quoted from
S.B.E. Vol. X, p. XXXII ; S.B.E. Vol. XXII, p. XLII. 2. See Cullvagga II, 12-1-1; Buddha Carya by Rahul Sankrityayan,
p. 556 ; Political History of Ancient India, by H.C. Raychoudhuri (Sixth Edition) 1953. p. 228.

Page #27

CHAPTER III
DR. JACOBI'S SECOND APPROACH
Dr. Jacobi had made another approach to the problem in his essay entitled as "The Nirvana of Mahā vīra and Buddha published in the 26th issue of a German research magazine in the year 1930. Its Gujrati rendering was published in Bhartiya Vidya1 and subsequently its Hindi translation, collected by Shri Kastur Chand Banthia, appeared in Śramaņa2, a monthly Hindi Magazine.
The conclusion of this essay is that Buddha died in 484 B.C. and Mahavira in 477 B.C. It means that Mahāvīra died 7 years after the death of Buddha and the former was fifteen years younger than the latter.
The Last Essay
4
According to Sri Kastura Chand Banthia, it was the last essay written by Dr. Jacobi and he has expressed an altered opinion therein. What astounds us is Dr. Jacobi's complete reticence, in this comprehensive essay, about his earlier view and the view he propounded later on, and the reasons that led him to change his opinion. The only thing he says while introducing the essay is: One school of thought says that, in accordance with the historical view passed on to us by tradition and stabilized by evidences,
1. Bhartiya Vidya, Vol. III, No. I, July, 1944.
2. Śramana Vol. XIII, No. VI-VII. 1962.
3. Ibid. Vol. XIII. No. VII, p. 10.
4. Ibid. Vol, XIII, No. VII, preface to the essay of Dr. Jacobi, p. 9.
5. Op. cit., pp. 9-10.

Page #28

Mahāvīra and Buddha Gautama Buddha had died many years before Mahāvīra. Another school of thought holds that, on the basis of the allusion found in the Buddist scriptures, Mahāvīra died perhaps only a little earlier than Buddha. This critique is being written to discover the extent of the truth underlying this obviously discernible contradiction.”
It is worth noting that Dr. Jacobi had already expressed his earlier view in the introductions to the volumes edited by him and they were published also during his life time. Nevertheless, why does not he again say his earlier statement in the last essay? It might have happend under some circumstances and we have not to go deep with its complicacies now. Here we have only to see on what grounds he has based his novel theory and how far they are true. It is beyond doubt that Dr. Jacobi was a profound critic, yet, as the discoverers of truth, it is our duty to examine and re-examine, any fact on various touch-stones, before accepting it. The Quintessence of Dr. Jacobi's Essay
After studying this essay thoroughly one comes to know that this essay was not written only with reference to the date of Nirvāṇa of Mahāyīra and Buddha, but one of the principal objects behind the writing of this essay was to bring to light the contemporary, political and royal conditions. The actual title of this essay, the Nirvāņa of Mahāvīra and Buddha and the contemporary Political Condition of Magadha also signifies the same fact. Also whatever he has written about the dates of the Nirvāṇa is not only insufficient to lead the present controversy to a decisive stage, but it is a little unnatural too. The main evidence, which Dr. Jacobi has advanced in support of his rennovated belief that Buddha was older than Mahāvīra and that

Page #29

Dr. Jackobi's Second Approach
Mahāvīra survived Buddha by a few years, can be stated as follows:
'The Jain scriptures furnish us with a further account of the later events connected with the wars fought between Ajätśatru (Koņika), the king of Magadha and the Vajjis (or Ceṭaka, the king of Vaišāli), etc. than what the Buddhist scriptures do.
In the Buddhist scriptures, Vassakära, the Prime Minister of Ajätśatru only lays down a plan of the victory over Vajjis before Buddha, whereas the Jain scriptures bear a picturesque discription not only of the Mahā-ŜilāKaṇṭaka war and Rath-Müsala war that took place between Cetaka and Konika, but also of the demolition of the rampart of Vaisali and finally of the victory of the king of Magadha over the Vajjis.'
On the basis of this evidence, Dr. Jacobi concludes,1 "It proves that Mahavira survived Buddha by several years (probably seven years)."
The extent to which the compilers of the scriptures. collected contemporary events in the scriptures, depended. upon the nature of their selection and needs. Even if we accept that the compilation made by the Jains is more extensive and exhaustive in comparison to that made by the Buddhists, it does not prove that Mahavīra lived for some years even after the death of Buddha.
Ajatsatru in the Buddhist Pitakas
It is a fact that the Jain scriptures have recorded more events or reminiscences about Konika. This has happened probably because of Konika's intimate association with
1. Śrmaņa, Vol. XIII, No. VII, p. 35.

Page #30

10
Mahāvīra and Buddha
the Jain religion. According to Dr. Rhys Davids, a distinguish scholar, who carried out a first rate research on the Buddhist literature, however extensive the delineation of Ajātšatru in the Buddhist Pițakas may be, it only proves that he was a mere sympathizer of Buddha, and not a follower. Ajātsatru had once called on Buddha and asked him what the fruits of monkhood were ?! With reference to that event Rhys Davids writes. At the close of the discourse the king is stated to have openly taken the Buddha as his guide in future, and to have given expression to the remorse he felt at the murder of his father. But it is also distinctively stated that he was not converted. There is no evidence that he really, after the moment when his heart was touched, continued to follow Buddha's teaching. He never, so far as we know, waited again either upon the Buddha, or upon any member of the order, to discuss ethical matters. And we hear of no material support given by him to the order during the Buddha's lifetime.
“We are told however, that, after the Buddha's death, he asked (on the ground that he, like the Buddha, was a Kșatriya) for a portion of the relics; that he obtained them; and built a Stupa or burial-mound over them. And though the oldest authority says nothing about it, younger works state that on the convocation of the First Council at Rajagraha, shortly after the decease, it was the King who provided and prepared the hall at the entrance to the Saptaparņi cave, where the rehearsal of the doctrine took place. He may well have thus showed favour to the Buddhists without at all belonging to their party. He would only, in so doing, be following the usual habit so
1. Digha Nikāya Samannya-phal Sutta, 1-2. 2. Buddhist India, pp. 15-16.

Page #31

Dr. Jackobis Second Approach
11 characteristic of Indian monarchs, of patronage towards all schools."
Dr. Radha Kumud Mukherjee, the renowned historian, has also proved on the basis of the Samannya-phala Sutta that Ajātšatru was a mere sympathizer, and not a follower of Buddha.? Koņika in the Jain Tradition
According to the Jain tradition, Konika was a staunch and devoted follower of Mahāvīra. He went so far as to establish a separate department headed by a special officer exclusively for the purpose of keeping himself informed of the activities of Mahāvīra's daily life. The officer was called Pravrttivăduka, one who speaks of the activities. He was assisted by a number of subordinates, who used to communicate the news to him. The Pravýtti vāduka after editing the news, finally conveyed it to king Koņika.?” No soonerdid king Koņika receive the news of Mahāvīra's arrival in the suburb of Campā, capital of his state, while sitting in his court assembly, than he stood up
1. Hindu Sabhyatā, P. 191. 2. Tassaņam Koniyassa ekke purise viulakae vihie bhagvau pavittiväue, bhagvau taddevasiyam pavitti ņivei !
Tassanam purisassa bahave anegapurisā dina bhatti bhattaveyaņā bhagvato pavittivāuya bhagvato taddevasiyam pavittim nivedamti !
Aupapătika Sutra, Samavasarana Adhikära, 10. 3. Tenam kälenam tenam samaenam konie rāyā bhambhasāraputte
bāhārīyä uivatthänasäläe anega gananāyaka damdanāyaga. Saddhim samparivude viharai ! Teņam kāleņam tenam samayeņam Samane bhayavam Mahavire............... Suhamsuhe Viharamāne campāeņayarīe bahiyā uvanagaragāmam uvāgae! Campānagari puņņabhadda ceiyam samosariokāme! Tattepam se pavittivāue imise kahäe laddhatthe sainane............campāņayarie majjhammajjhenam................ jeneva kopivassarannegihe......... ......jeneva koniyarāyā bhambhasăraputte teneva uvāgcchai,
Contd. on next page
Tasso

Page #32

12
Mahavira and Buddha
and came seven or eight steps ahead of the throne, in a. blissful state ; in the uttara sājiga position? he masked his mouth by a scarf; and chanting “Namotthunam”, he said', ‘To thee, O Mahāvīra, who first sowed the seeds of religion in my soul, my religious preceptor, I bow down in reverence from this move place, for thou art yet staying away (in the garden)” After this, when Mahāyīra had arrived. at Campā, Koņika also presented himself in the religious assembly of Mahāvīra. Not only Koņika had visited Mahāvīra more than once, but also, after Mahāvīra's
uvāgacchittā.....evam vayasi.....jassanam devänuppiyā damsarņam kamkhanti, jassanam devānuppiya.damsanam patthanti, jassanam devā drasanam abhilasanti jassanam devā nābhagottassavi savanattāe hatthatuttha jāva hiyayā bhavanti senam samaņe bhagavam Mahāvīre.........campāenayarie uvanagaramgāmam uvāgae, ca:ipānagari pusnabhaddaccie samāsariākāme! Taeņam devāņu ppiyāņam piyatathāyäe piyani vedemi piyanibhe bhavao ! Tattenam se Konie rāyā bhambhasāraputte tassa pavitti vāuyassa antie eyayaţtham soccänisammahatthatuţthe jāya hiyaye......... simhāsaņão abbhūtthei.........egasādiya uttarāsamgam karei......... amjali mauliya hatthe titthayarā bhimühe sattattha payāi anugacitti .........tikattu evam vayāsī............ņamotthunam arihamtānam ......... sampattānam......... Ibid, 11-18. The uttarāsariga position is the one, in which a Jain layman bows down ; he has to mask his mouth with a scarf, which should be a single piece of cloth without any joints, in order not to kill the lives of air. Namotthunam, which is also known as Sakkathui, (Sakrastuti, is a hymn to pay homage to the Tirthaikaras. This also indicates
that Konika was a Jain 'Śrāraka'. 3. Namotthunam samanassa bhagavao Mahāvīrassa ādikarassa, titha
karassa Jāva sampāviokāmassa mamadhammaigarassa dhammovadesagassa vamdāmiņam bhagavam tatthagayam ihagate pāsaume bhagvam tathagae iahgayam tikattu, vamdarti namam saṁii".
--Aupapătika Sutra, Samarasarana Adhikůra, 18. 4. Ibid, 102—137.

Page #33

Dr. Jackobi's Second Approach
Nirvāṇa, he attended a meeting arranged by Suddharma Svami, the immediate successor of Mahāvīra, and put serious questions to him. In addition to these, we find a number of such conclusions in the Jain scriptrures, which make it crystal clear that Konika was a staunch follower of Mahavira and Jain religion.
While, on the other hand, as Rhys Davids writes, "When the king of Magadha, the famous (and infamous) Ajätśatru, made his only call upon the Buddha, he is said to have put a puzzle to the teacher to test him......," and as we have already quoted Rhys Davids," "he (Ajatśatru) never, so far as we know, waited again either upon Buddha or upon any member of the order to discuss ethical matters......," Ajatśatru had little inclination towards Buddhism. What opinion, Buddha had for Ajätśatru becomes clear from his own words, he uttered: "O Bhikṣus! the king of Magadha Ajataśatru is a friend to, an intimate of, mixed up with, whatever is evil," According to the Buddhist texts, Ajātaśatru was, inter alia, a parricide, and a supporter of Devadadatta, the great schismatics. Again it was Ajātsatru according to the Buddhist canons, who incited by Devadatta, ordered his men to deprive Buddha of his life.
13
A similar is the case of Ceṭaka, the king of Vaiśālī. He was not only a maternal uncle of Mahavira', but also a
1. Parisiṣața Parva of Hema-Candracārya, cantos IV v. v. 15-54. 2. Buddhist India, p. 88.
3. Ibid, pp. 15-16.
4. Samyukata Nikaya, 1-81 (The Book of Kindred Sayings, Tr. by Mrs. Rhys Davids, Vol. I, p. 109.
5. Ibid, vol. I, p. 109.
6. Vinaya Pitaka, Culla Vagga, VII 3-6 (The Book of Discipline, Tr. by I.B. Horner, vol. V, p. 268). Cf. also "Shri Chand Rampuria" in chapter V of this Book.
7. Avaśyaka Cūrṇi, part 1, leaf 245.

Page #34

Mahavira and Buddha
staunch follower of Mahavira1. The Buddhist Tripitakas do not even mention the name of Ceṭaka, though they bear a long description of the Vajjis". Dr. Jacobi, himself, has observed that the reason of taciturnity of the Buddhist canonical texts about Ceṭaka is that Buddha's rival (i.e. Mahāvīra) was benefited by the great influence of Ceṭaka and that the Jains give respect to Ceṭaka, the maternal uncle of Mahavira, because Vaiśāli became a strong supporter of Jainism on account of Ceṭaka, whereas the Buddhists call it (Vaiśāli) a 'monastery of heretics, Hence, if, according to Dr. Jacobi, the Jain Agamas bear more extensive account of the events concerning Konika and Ceṭaka than the Buddhist Tripitakas, its natural and consistent reason is that they (Konika and Cetaka) were eminent disciples of Mahāvīra and Jain religion and 'heretics' in the view of Buddha and not, as Dr. Jacobi has inferred, that Mahavira survived Buddha. Dr. Jacobi's inference is based only on misunderstanding and misinterpretation, for we find that the Buddhist Tripitakas are replete with many such brilliant and candid descriptions, which show that Mahavira predeceased Buddha, while the Jain Agamas say nothing about Buddha's Nirvāņa.
14
In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the true inference should have been that Mahavira attained the Nirvana before Buddha and Buddha later than Mahāvīra, for the Jain scriptures maintain no record of Buddha's Nirvana and the Buddhist scriptures distinctly state that Mahāvīra died earlier than Buddha. The greatest flaw in
1. Ibid, uttarardha, leaf 164; Triṣaṣṭiśalakāpuruşa Caritra of HemaCandracārya, parva, X, cantos VI, v. 188; Upadeśamāla, (with commentary) leaf 238; Uttarapurāṇa, p. 483.
2. Digha Nikaya, Mahā-Pārinivvāṇa Sutta. 3. S.B.E., (Vol. XXII, Introduction, p. XIII.

Page #35

Dr. Jackobi's Second Approach
15 Dr. Jacobi's essay is that he has striven to prove the three allusions of the Buddhist Tripițakās which refer to Mahāvīra's Nirvānal, false and fictitious with a view to stabilize his own farfetched interpretation. He says that as these allusions occur in varying forms at different places, they are not credible. On the other hand, he also says that despite the variance in these allusions, they have one and the same objective in common, viz. giving the order of monks a message of love and unity by referring to Mahāvīra's Nirvāņa indirectly. It is worth noting that in spite of these three allusions being slightly variant from one another, the reference to Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa in all of them remains absolutely the same. The compilers of the scriptures might have embellished the prefaces with whatever style they choose, but it would be entirely unreasonable to think that they might have gone so far as to commit a blunder of calling, living Mahāvīra dead one.
Pārā, the Place of Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa ??
Another argument placed forth by Dr. Jacobi in this context is that the city Pāvā depicted as the place of Mahāvīra's Nirvāna in the Buddhist scriptures lay in the land of Mallas, where Buddha sojourned in his last days, whereas in accordance with the traditional belief of the Jains, Mahāvīra attained the Nirvūņa in another Pāvā, situated near Rājagrha in Patna district. Hence, like the fictitious Pāvā, according to Dr. Jacobi, the whole story of Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa seems to be nothing but a mere fabri
1. See, for these allusions, 'The Event of Mahavira's Nirvana in
Buddhist Tripitakās' in chapter VII of this Book. 2. Śramana, Vol. XIII, No. VI, pp. 14-15. 3. Ibid, p. 15.

Page #36

16
Mahāvīra and Buddha
cation. Dr. Jacobi also holds that it is not justifiable to doubt the Jain traditions about the sacred place of Mahāvīra's Nirvana. Even if we may assume that the Buddhists had made this mistake on account of the identical name of Pāvā allotted by them, for such mistakes are liable to be committed, it can not be interpreted that the whole story about Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa is completely forged. As a matter of fact, Dr. Jacobi's caution against our expressing even the slightest possible doubt regarding the Pāvā accepted in the Jain tradition, has not only been rendered dubious on historical grounds, but it has also become baseless.
Often there happens to be a striking contrast between history and tradition. The traditional Ksatriyakunda situated near Lichchhuad is supposed to be the birth-place of Mahāvīra but the research carried into it by modern history has proved it wholly un-authentic. According to the historical concept, the village Basādh, situated in Mujjaffarpur District, 27 miles away to the North of Patna is no other than the Ksatriyakunda, the birth-place of Mahāvīra. Thus the traditional birth-place lies far off to South of the Ganges, while the historically accepted place is situated to the North of the Ganges.
So is the case of Pāvā. Traditionally accepted Pāvā lies in the South Bihar and the splendid temples standing there have made it to be the place of pilgrimage for the Jains. But history does not share the belief that it is the true place of Mahāvīra's Nirvāna. According to the modern view, the Pāvā of Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa should be in the North of the Ganges, for the 18 kings of the republics of Mallas and Licchavis were present in Pāvā at the time of
1.
Ivid, p. 16.

Page #37

Dr. Jacobi's Second Approach
17 Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa', and this can be more true only with regard to the Pāvā, situated in the North of the Ganges, since their kingdom lay stretched towards the North side, while the Pāvā situated in the South of the Ganges (near Rājagļha), lay entirely in the land of their enemy Ajātšatru, the king of Magadha. How could they be expected to be present in the land of their sworn enemy ? Many thinkers and historians such as Pt. Rahul Sankrityayana, Dr. Rajbali Pandey,3 M.A. D. Litt, Nathuram Premi, Dr. Nalinakṣa Dutt, Shri Ranjan Suri Deo, Shri Shrichand Rampuria? Acharya Vijyendra Suri, etc. have confirmed this fact. All of them agree to the fact that Mahāvīra had died in the Pāvā of Mallas, that this Pāvā should be on the North of the Ganges and that the Pāvā situated in the South of the Ganges (near Rājagțha in Patna district) and tradi
1. Kalpa Sūtra, 128 ; cf, S.B.E. Vol. XXII. 2. Darína Digdarśana, p 444n. 3. Bhagwāna Mahāvīra ki Nirvana Bhumi Pāvā ki Sthiti, an artical
In Mahāvīra commemoration volume, Vol I 1948–49, pp 45–9, and Bhārtiya Itihāsa ki Bhūmikā (Prācīn Bhārata), part I, p. 83.
Jain Sahitya Aura Itihāsa, p. 189. 5. Uttara Pradeśa Mem Buddha Dharma kā Vikāsa, p. 10. 6. Sramaņa, Vol. XIII, no. VI. p. 26. 7. Jaina Bhārati, Vol. Jan. 1951 p. 17. 8. Vaišali, pp. 85-87.
Pt. Rahul Sankrityanaya identifies it with the present Papahura, a village near Ramkola Rly. station in Gorakhapur Distt. (Loc. cit.); Cuuningham identifies it with Padarauna in Devaria Distt; while Dr. Rajbali Pandey (cf. op. cit. pp. 47-8) and Acharya Vijayendra Suri (cf. op cit. pp. 85-7) refute both these views on the basis of the geographical reasons and identify Pāvā, the place of Nirvana with the ruins of Sathiyāmva Fazilanagara, 9 miles south east of Kuśīnagara in Meveria District. They have corroborated their views by quoting an archaeologist named Karlayle. who, on the basis of his archaeological Survey, had identified Pāvā with the above place.

Page #38

18
Mahāvīra and Buddha tionally believed to be the place of Mahāvīra's Nirvana has erroneously been adopted by the Jains, being oblivious of the true Pāvā.
Thus, it becomes clear that the Pāvā, on the basis of which Dr. Jacobi rejects the Buddhist allusion about Mahāvīra's Nirvāņa by ascertaining them as false and unreal, happens to be the historically accepted Pāvā and confirms the authenticity of those allusions.
Agamas and Tripiļakas in Relatian to the Contemporary Condi
tions,
Dr. Jacobi's view that the Jain Āgamas give a more comprehensive account of the contemporary conditions than what the Buddhist Tripitakas do, is also not trustworthy for, the events cited by Dr. Jacobi are not all contained in the original Agamas. The whole event of “The victory over vaiśālī which ensued after the Mahāśilā-Kanțaka war and the Ratha-Mūsala war and wherein the monk Kūlavālaya became the cause of the demolition of the ramparts of Vajśālī, has been quoted by Dr. Jacobi himself from a later Jain work, Āvasyaka Kathā. The Āgamas and the Tripitakas, which are the original canonical texts of the Jains and the Buddhists respectively, in fact, do not differ much regarding the description of the contemporary political conditions. Now, if we consider the later works of both traditions, the work of the Buddhist traditions like Mahāvassa contain as much vivid descriptions as we find in those of the Jain traditions. Mahāvansa contains even the chronology of the kings up to Asoka?. This by no means testifies to the fact that Buddha died later than Mahāvīra.
1. Mahāvamsa, Pariccheeda, IV-V.

Page #39

Dr. Jacobi's Second Approach
The Date of Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa
Dr. Jacobi regards 477 B.C. as the date of Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa and 484 B.C. as that of Buddha's Nirvāņa. But he refrains from giving any specific indication throughout his essay why it became inevitable for him to accept these dates. He simply says, "Though according to the unanimous traditions of the Jains, Candragupta's accession took place 215 years A.V. (after the death of Mahāvīra), in accordance with the view propounded by Hemacandra, (Parisista Parva, 8-339) Candragupta acceded to the throne 155 A.V." Dr. Jacobi has supported his view by citing another Jain work, Kahāvali, of Bhadreśvara.
19
Now, the fact is that, as stated by Dr. Jacobi, it is unanimously accepted in all the Jain traditions that Candragupta's accession took place only 215 years after the Nirvana of Mahāvīra2 and not 155 years, as accepted by Acarya Hemacandra3. The view of Acārya Hemacandra would prove baseless, if tested on the touchstone of history. Also, the scholars have regarded it as a great blunder committed by Acarya Hemacandra. The most substantiated opinion in this regard is that, a king named Palaka was enthroned at Ujjain the very day on which Mahavira attained the Nirvana. He (or his dynasty) reigned for 60 years. After this, Nandas ruled for 155 years. Then ensued the Mauryan rule, that is to say Candragupta Maurya was enthroned 215 years after the death of Mahāvīra. This allusion has been extracted from
1. Op. cit. p. 10.
2. See, "Date of Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa" in Chapter VII of this book. 3. Evam ca śri Mahāvīramuktervarşaśate gate!
Pañc pñcasadadhike Candragupto bhavennṛpaḥ !! -Parisista Parva, VIII, V. 339.
4. Titthogāli Painnaya, 620-21.

Page #40

20
Mahāvīra and Buddha
'Titthogāli Painnaya, which is supposed to be much older than both the books viz. Kahāvali of Bhadresavara and Parisiṣṭa Parva of Hemacandra.
It seems that the period of 60 years of the reign of Pālaka has completely been omitted in the calculation of Hemacandra's Parisiṣṭa Parva. Mr. Purna Chandra Nahar, M.A., B.L., M.S., and Mr. Krishna Chandra Gosh, Vedantachintamani write1, "Hem Chandra-charaya must have omitted by oversight to count the period of 60 years of King Palaka after Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa."
Dr. Jacobi has edited Parisiṣṭa Parva2. He has observed in the preface to it that Hemacandracarya had composed that work in haste, as a consequence of which the work is studed with errors. Elaborating the subject in the preface itself, Dr. Jacobi has illustrated several compositional and grammatical errors comitted by Hemacandra with concrete evidences. It is quite probable that the verse on the basis of which Dr. Jacobi has inferred the date of Mahävira's Nirvana, might have also been composed with the same carelessness. The date of Mahāvīra's Nirvāņa accepted by Hemacandrācārya himself, while stating the period of his own contemporary king Kumarapala is 527 B.C., and not 477 B. C. Hemacandracarya writes in Trişaṣṭisalakāpurścaritra3: "When 1669 years will have been completed after the death of Mahāvīra, there will flourish a king named Kumarapala who will shine like a moon of Caulu
1. Epitome of Jainism, Appendix A, IV. 2. Published by Asiatic Society, Calcutta.
3.
Asmin nirvāṇato varṣaśatyā (tā) nyamayaṣoḍaśa ! Navaşaṣṭiśca yasyanti yadā tatra pure tada !! Kumarapalabhūpālo, caulukyakula-candramāḥ! Bhavisyati mahabahuḥ pracanḍakhanḍaśāsanaḥ !! -Trişaṣṭisalākāpuruşacaritra, parva X cantos XII, vv. 45-46

Page #41

Dr. Jacobi's Second Approach
21
kya dynasty." Now it is unanimously accepted that Kumarapala's accession took place in 1142 A.D.1 But according to Hemacandracarya, the interval between this event and the date of Mahavira's Nirvāṇa is 1669 years. In this way, Hemacandrācārya himself has also accepted 1669-1142-527 B.C., as the date of Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa.
The Date of Buddha's Nirvāņa
Dr. Jacobi regards 484 B.C., as the date of Buddha's Nirvāṇa, for according to him", "The southern Buddhists hold that Candragupta's accession took place 162 years after the death of Buddha. And the uncontroversial date of Candragupta's enthronement is 322 B.C. Hence (322+162)=484 B.C. is the date of Buddha's Nirvāṇa.” The fact regarding Candragupta's accession gleaned by Dr. Jacobi referring to the tradition of Southern Buddhists is taken from the Ceylonese chronicle-Mahāvaṁśa3. But
1. An Advanced History of India by R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhuri, and K.K. Datta, p. 202.
2. Saramana, vol. XIII No. VI. p. 10.
3. Ajätasattuputto tam, ghatetvādāyabhaddako! Rajjam solasavassāni, kāresi mittadubbhiko !! !!! Udayabhaddaputto tam, ghātetvā anuruddako! Anuruddhassa putto tam, ghatevā muṇḍanāmako !! 2 !! Mittadduno dummatino, te pi rajjam akārayum! Tesam ubhinnam rajjesu, aṭṭhavassānatikkamum !! 3 !! Mundassa putto pitaram, ghatetavā nägadāsako! Catuvisati vassāni, rajjam kāresi pāpako !! 4!! Pitughātakavamsoyam, iti kuddhatha nāgarā ! Nāgadāsakarājānam, apnetvā samāgatā !! 5 !! Susunagoti paññātam amaccam sādhu sammatam ! Rajje samabhisiñcisum, savvesim hitamānasă !! 6 !! So aṭṭhārasa vassāni rājā rajjam akāryi; ! Kālāsoko tassa putto aṭṭhavisati käryi: !! 7 !!

Contd. on next page

Page #42

22
Mahāvīra and Buddha
on one hand the Mahāvariša state that Candragupta's accession took place 162 years after Buddha's death, while on the other hand it shows 543 B.C. as the date of Buddha's Nirvāņa. Dr. Jacobi, too has hold it as the most popular date of Buddha's Nirvāṇa accepted by the traditions. Now if Mahāvamsa considering 543 B.C. as the date of Buddha's Nirvāņa, places Candragupta's enthronement 162 years after the death of Buddha, we get 381 B.C. as the date of Candragupta's accession. But it does not agree with the uncontroversial historical data of Candragupta's accession viz. 322 B.C. Hence, it is obvious that the date of Buddha's Nirvāņa fixed by Dr. Jacobi on the basis of the suspicious evidence of Mahāvamśa' is not compatible.
Inconsistencies
The acceptances of the date of the Nirvāṇa of Mahāvīra
Atīte dasame vasse, kālāsokassa rājino ! Sambuddha parinivvānā, evem vassasatam ahu !! 8 !! -Mahavamsa, Pariccheda, IV, 1-8 Kālāsokass puttā tu, ahesum dasa bhātukā ! Dyāvisati te vassāni, rajjam samanusāsisum !! 14 !! Nava namdātatoāsum, kameneva narādhipă ! Tepi dvāvisa vassāni, rajjam samanusāsisum !! 15 !! Moriyāņam khatiyaņam vanaśe jātam siridharam ! Candaguttoti pañātam, cānakko brāhmane tatto !! 16 !! Navamam dhananamdam tam, ghātetvā candakodhavā ! Sakale jambudīpamsmim, rajie samabhi siñciso !! 17 !!
-Mahāvassa, Pariccheda, V, vv. 14--17. 1. Cf. Political History of Ancient India, by Dr. H.C. Raychaudhuri,
p. 225; Bhārata Kā Itihāsa, by Prof. Shrinetra Pandey, Part I,
(4th edition), p. 243. 2. Op. cit. p. 10. 3. It may be noted here that the chronology discribed in Mahāvaṁsa
the ceylonese chronicle has been found, in general, to be erroneous on historical tests ; see, for the detailed discussion of this, 'Inconsistencies in Ceylonese Chronology in chapter I of this book.

Page #43

23
Dr. Jacobi's Second Approach
23 and Buddha inferred by Dr. Jacobi also gives rise to many inconsistencies. In the Bhagavati Sūtra, Gośālaka speaks of eight finalities in his last days and Mahāśilā-Kanțaka war was also one of them. We deduce from it that Gośālaka died after the Mahāśilā-kanțaka war had taken place. Again seven days before the death of Gośālaka, Mahāvīra had announced”. “I shall remain alive yet 16 years from today without any hinderance like a supremely puissant elephant.” In other words, even if we assume that MahasīlāKaaņțka war broke out immediately after Koņika's accession to the throne, there elapsed at least 17 years between Konika's accession and Mahāvīra's death. But this, by no means, goes beyond 15 years, according to the date fixed by Dr. Jacobi. Another inconsistency arising from Jacobi's findings becomes clear from the following event described in Jain literature :
Once upon a time, the king Śrenika asked Mahāvīra:
1. Tassavina vajjassa pacchānatthāaimāim attha carmaim pannavei,
tamjahā-carime pāņe, charime geye, carime natte, carime añjalikamme, carime pokkhalassa sam-vațţae mahāmehe, carime seyanae gandhahatthi, carime Mahāśila Kamtae Sāmgāme,
-Bhagvati Sutra, Sataka, XV. 2. Taenam samane bhagvam Mahāvīre Gośālam mamkhliputtam
evam vayāsī--ņo khalu aham, Gosālā ! Tava taveņa teenam anāiţthe samāne anto chanham māsāņam jāvakälam krissāmi ! Ahāṁ nam annáim solasavassäim jine suhatthi viharissãmi." Ibid,
Saiaka. XV. 3. For, taking 484 B.C., as the date of Buddha's Nirvana, Konika's
accession, which according to Dr. Jacobi took place 7 or 8 years before the Nirvāna of Buddha, falls in 491-2 B.C., and the date of Mahāvīra's Nirvāna is 477 B.C. Hence, the maximum possible
interval is 15 years. 4. Punarvijñpayāmāsa Jinendram magdhādhipah ! Bhagvan kevaljñānam kasmin uvycchedamesyati !!
Contd. on next page

Page #44

24
Mahāvīra and Buddha
“Who will be the last Kevalin (omniscent)?” Mahavīra, answering the king's question, said to him : "On the seventh day from today, this good named Vidyunmālī, will be conceived in the womb of the wife of Rşabhadatta, a businessman in your city Rājagțha. That child will be named as Jambū-Kumāra, and he will be the last Kevalin."
Now, all the Jain traditions unanimously accept the fact that when Jambū-Kumāra was 16 years old, he was initiated into monkhood by Sudharmā Svämil the successor of Mahāvīra, in the same year in which Mahāvīra died.2 This means that Jambū-Kumāra was conceived in the womb of his mother nearly 17 years before the Nirvāņa of Mahāvīra. At that time, king 'Śreņika' was alive. But as we have seen, the reign of Koņika began more than 16 years before the Niryāņa of Mahāvīra. Therefore, we infer that the end of 'śreņika's' rule and the beginning of Koņika's rule took place nearly 17 years before the Nirvāņa
Nāthapyakathayat paśya vidyunmāli surohyasau ! Sāmāniko brahmendrasya caturdevi Samāvstah !! Ahnomuşmät saptamehni cyutvā bhāvi pure tava! Sreșthi-rşabhadattas ya Jambu hutrontyakevali !!
- Parisişta Parva, cantos I, vy. 262-64. 1. Sudharmā Svāminah pâdānāpādainbhodhitārakān!
Pañcāngasprşta-bhūpithaḥ sa pranmya vyajijñapat !! Samsärasāgaratarim pravajyām parmeśvara i Mama sasvajansyāpi dehi dhehi krpām mayi !! Pañcamaḥ śriganadharo pyevamabhyarthitastada !! Tasmai saparivārāya dadau dikşāṁ yathāvidhi !! Ibid, cantos III, vv. 287-89, The total age of Jambu Svāmi was 80 years, out of which 16 years were spent in the household life, the next 20 years as a monk in non-omniscent stage, and the last 44 years in the omniscent stage. Also, he attained the Nirvana 64 years after Māhavira's Nirvāņa. It means that he was initiated into monkhood in the same year in which Mahāvīra attained the Nirvana.
2.

Page #45

Dr. Jacobi's Second Approach
25 of Mahāvīra. But, the chronology proposed by Dr. Jacobi, allow a maximum interval of 15 years between these events. In this way the acceptance of these dates involves many objections.
Conclusion
The opinion that Mahāvīra attained the Nirvāṇa in 527 B.C. has remained almost uncontroversial and unique. No date of Buddha's Nirvāṇa has been taken to be so indubitable. A number of opinions about the date of Buddha's Nirvāņa were in vogue in ancient time and they continue to exist. even now. Nevertheless, in this essay, Dr. Jacobi has gone so far as to ascertain (484 B.C.), the date of Buddha's Nirvāna as almost unique and has tried to reconcile the events of Mahāvīra's life with it through far-fetched interpretations. By doing so, Dr. Jacobi has stirred up a new polemic with regard to the contemporaneity of Mahāvira. and Buddha. The view expressed by Dr. Jacobi has also been rendered obsolete for more than 33 years have elapsed. since what he wrote. In the mean time history has also renovated and modified to a very great extent. Hence it will not at all be reasonable to accept Dr. Jacobi's findings as final.
Pandit Sukh Lal ji and Other Scholars
Some thinkers of our age have accepted Dr. Jacobi's view regarding the chronology of Mahāvīra and Buddha. The famous Jain scholar Pandit Sukh Lal ji writes:3 “Prof. Jacobi has found out on the basis of a comparative study
1. See, Traditional Dates of Buddha's Nirvāņa, in chapter VII of this.
book. 2. The essay of Dr. Jacobi was published originally in 1930. 3. Darśana Aura Cintana, Part II, pp. 47, 48.

Page #46

26
Mahāvīra and Buddha
of the Jain and the Buddhist texts in the light of history that Mahāvīra attained the Nirvāṇa decidedly certain years later than Buddha. Jacobi has made it clear by his deep research work that the war of the Licchavis and the Vajjis with Konika took place only after Buddha's Nirvāṇa and during the life-time of Mahāvīra. For, the description of the war is found only in the Jain Scriptures, though the Licchavis and the Vajjis are mentioned in both the Jain and the Buddhist texts.”
The above quotation shows that Pt. Sukh Lal ji has accepted Dr. Jacobi's view as it is. He has not deliberated over the subject independently. Often we all do so, when a particular subject is not ours or when we do not get an occasion to go deep into it, we generally accept the view of some scholar of that subject regarding it. It is also quite natural that many scholars are required to solve many problems. There is, then, always a mutual exchange of views between the different scholars of different subjects.
Pt. Sukh Lal ji has given importance to two thingsone is that while the Buddhist scriptures do not bear any description of the war of the Vajjis with Koņika, the Jain Scriptures do. But, as we have already discussed, this is not at all important in deciding the present issue.
The other thing is that the above war was precedent to the Nirvāņa of Buddha and antecedent to that of Mahāvīra. This view is based on the general belief that the Mahā-Parinivväņa Sutta contains only those events of Buddha's life that happened in his last days. The first event referred to by this Sutta, is the meeting of Vassakāra, the chief minister of the king Ajātsatru (Koņika) with Buddha. Their, Vassakāra lays forth a plan of victory over the Vajjis before Buddha. This event, therefore, is believed to have been associated with the last days of Buddha.

Page #47

Dr. Jacobi's Second Approach
27 That most of the events described in the Maha-Parinivvāņa Sutta, are connected with the last days of Buddha's life is understandable, but that all the events contained in above Sutta are so, can not be accepted as a fact. It is to be noted that Sāriputta's conversation with Buddha is also one of the subjects of the Mahā-Parinivkāņa Sutta, whereas
1. The following is the translation of that chapter of the Maha
parinivvāņa Sutta : "Now, when the Blessed one had stayed as long as was convenient at Ambalatthikā, he addressed the venerable Ananda, and said : Come Ananda, let us go on to Nalandā."
"So be it Lord !” said Ananda, in assent, to the Blessed one.
Then the Blessed one proceeded, with a great company of the brethren of Nalanda, and there at Nalandā, the Blessed one stayed in the Pavarika mango grove.
Now the venerable Säriputta came to the place where the Blessed one was, and having saluted him, took his seat respectfully at his side and said : "Lord ! Such faith have I in the Blessed one, that me thinks there never has been, nor will there be, nor is there now any other, whether Samaņa or Brahmana, who is greater and wiser than the Blessed one, that is to say, as regards the higher wisdom.' . Grand and bold are the words of thy mouth, Sāriputta ! Verily, thou hast burst forth in a song of ecstasy ! Of course then thou hast known all the Blessed ones who in the long ages of the past have been Arahat Buddhas, comprehending their minds with yours, and aware what their conduct was, what their doctrine. what their wisdom, what their mode of life, and what salvation they attained to ?'
'Not so, O Lord !
But at last then, O Sāriputta ! thou knowest me as the Arhat-Buddha now alive, and hast penetrated my mind (in the manner I have mentioned).'
'Not even that, O Lord !'
"You see then, Säriputta ! that you know the hearts of the Arahat Buddhas of the past and of the future. Why, therefore, are your words so grand and bold? Why do you burst forth into such a song of ecstasy ?
O Lord! I have not the Knowledge of the heart of the Arahat Buddhas that have been, and are to come, and now are. I only know the
Contd. on next page

Page #48

28
Mahāvīra and Buddha
it is unanimously believed that Sāriputta, had died long before Buddha's Nirvāṇa.
The fact appears to be that Vassakāra had called on Buddha, when, after Maha-Silā-Kanțaka and the Ratha-Müsala wars, Koņika had besieged the city of Vaiśālī, and he and his minister had been further devising the various plans to devastate the walls of Vaiśālī. This belief is also substantiated by the fact that according to the Jain sources, Konika was advised to employ the insidious strategies to enable him to enter into the city of Vajśālī and also according to the Buddhist Scriptures, Vassakāra, the chief minister of Ajātaśatru, after having talked with Buddha and having
lineage of the faith just, Lord ! as a king might have a border city, strong in its foundations, strong in its ramparts and toranas, and with one gate alone; and the king might have a watchman there, clever, expert, and wise, to stop all strangers and admit only friends. And he, on going over the approaches all round the city, might not so observe all the joints and crevices in the ramparts of that city as to know where even a cat could get out. That might well be. Yet all living things of larger size that entered or left the city, would have to do so by that gate. Thus only is it, Lord, that I know the lineage of the faith. I know that the Arhat Buddhas of the past putting away all lust, ill will, sloth, pride, and doubt; knowing all those mental faults which make men weak; training their minds in the four kind of mental activity, throughly exercising themselves in the sevenfold higher wisdom, received the full fruition of Enlightenmtent. And I know that the Arahat Buddhas of the times to come will do the same). And I know that the Blessed one the Arahat Buddha of today, has (done so) now."
Tr. by T. W. Rhy Davids, Buddhist Sutta the Sacred Books of the East Series, Vol. X, pp. 12-14.
The renowned Buddhist Scholar Rahul Sankrityayana commenting on this chapter of Maha-Parinivvānna-Sutta writes that the name of Sāriputta has been referred to here on account of the error committed by the Bhanakas (the persons who used to learn the Scriptures by heart) Buddha Caryā, p. 525). If we suppose so, can it not be probable that the whole event of Vassakāra is also compiled in the Mahā-Parinivvāna-Sutta only erroneously?

Page #49

29
Dr. Jacobi's Second Approach known about the invincibility of the Vajjis, decided to play the croocked trick of bribing the Vajjis, and thus creating a rupture in their unity.
In the same way, both the traditions consider the honour paid by the Vajjis to the stūpas and temples standing inside the walled city, to be the chief cause of their impregnability.
In the Jain source, it has been said that as long as the stupa of Mallinātha remained standing, Konika would not be able to win Vaiśālī. According to the Buddhist text", Buddha says to Ananda “......so long as the Vajjis honour and esteem and revere and support the Vajjian shrines in town and country and allow not the proper offerings and rites, as formerly given and performed, to fall into destitude......may the Vajjins be expected not to decline, but to prosper.” Then he addressed Vassakāra, the Brahmana, and said, “So long as those conditions shall continue to exist among the Vajjins,... ...so long may we expect them not to decline but to prosper”.
There are many more such points which make it crystal clear that the opinion of Dr. Jacobi that Buddha's Nirvāṇa was antecedent to the Vaiśālī war, is not correct.
We find that like Pt. Sukh Lal ji the scholars such as Kasturmalji Banthia have accepted Dr. Jacobi's view firmly, but this has happened only on account of their partial consideration.
Dr. Charpentier
Another independent effort to solve the present enigma
1. Avasyaka Kathānka. 2. Mahā Parinivvāna
Vol. XI, p. 3.
Sutta, Tr. By T.W. Rhys Davids ; S.B.E.

Page #50

30
Mahāvīra and Buddha
was made by Dr. Jarl Charpentier in 19141 (i.e. in between the first and the second approaches of Dr. Jacobi.) Dr. Charpentier's conclusion is that Mahāvīra attained the Nirvāṇa after Buddha's Nirvāṇa. According to him, the dates of the Nirvāņa of Buddha and Mahavira are 477 B.C. and 467 B.C. respectively. Dr. Charpentier's conclusion is mainly based on the following two assumptions : 1. Buddha died in 477 B.C. 2. Pāvā, the place of Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa, is different from Pāvā recorded in the Buddhist Pițakas. Now we find that these two fundamental notions have totally changed in the course of historical investigations. In past, at some time, 477 B.C. was considered by the historians to be the exact date of Buddha's decease. But in the modern history, the above date has no place at all. Secondly, Dr. Charpentier has tried to falsify the Buddhist account of the predecease of Mahāvīra on the basis that Mahāvīra died at Pāyā in South Bihar, whereas the Buddhist texts speak of Mahāvīra's Nirvāņa at Pāvā in North Bihar. But, as we have seen, almost all the modern scholars and historians are of the view that Pāvā situated in North Bihar, is the true place of Mahāvīra's Nirvāņa. Dr. Jacobi has quoted in his second approach, the above belief of Dr. Charpentier in support of his own view, but it is remarkable that Dr. Jacobi has not accepted the date of Mahāvīra's and Buddha's Nirvana, proposed by Dr. Charpentier. Actually it seems that the date of Buddha's Nirvāṇa which was popularly accepted in the history at the time of Dr. Charpentier's writing was made by Charpentier the basis of his research work. Sixteen
1. Indian Antiquary, 'The date of Mahāvira' Vol. XLIII, 1914, pp.
118 ff. 125 ff. 167 ff. 2. See, ‘Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa in which Pāvā’, in the Chapter III of
this book.

Page #51

Dr. Jacobi's Second Approach
years after this, when Dr. Jacobi made his second approach, the historical view regarding the date of Buddha's Nirvāṇa had undergone a change, and hence, Dr. Jacobi accepted. the new date of Buddha's Nirvana. But we should not forget that Dr. Jacobi's second approach has become nearly thirty-two years old, and that during this long period new views about the chronology of Mahāvīra and Buddha, have come to light in the field of history. It is, therefore, necessary to reconsider the whole issue in the light of the new facts.

31

Page #52

CHAPTER IV
Dr. K. P. JAYASWAL
A renowned historian and editor of the Journal of Bihar and Orissa Research Society, Dr. K.P. Jayaswal has made a remarkable effort to solve this problem. Dr. Jayaswal's view on the present subject, in short, can be summarised thus : The allusions about Mahāvīra's death found in the Buddhist texts should not be neglected. According to the Sāmagāma Sutta, Buddha had heard about Mahāvīra's death in his life-time and the popular belief is that Buddha died two years after this event. According to the Southern Buddhists, Buddha died in 544 B.C. Therefore, Mahāvīra should have attained the Nirvāņa in 546 B.C.
Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa and Vikramāditya
In order to reconcile this date (546 B.C.) of Mahāvīra's Nirvaņā Dr. Jayaswal has tried to give a new interpretation to the traditional belief that Vikramāditya flourished 470 years after Mahāvīra's Nirvāņa. Dr. Jayaswal's argument is? : “The view of the Jain-traditional chronology that the interval between Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa and the Vikram era is 470 years, is, in reality the one, which is given in the Pattāvali of Srāvasti Gaccha, and which states the above period to be the interval between Mahavira's Nirvāṇa and the birth of Vikrma. Vikrma's enthronement is stated to have
1. Journal of Bihar and Orissa Research Society, XIII, pp. 240-246. 2. See, 'The Chronology of Mahäviru' in Chapter VII of this book. 3. Journal of Bihar and Orissa Research Society, XIII, p. 246.

Page #53

Dr. K.P. Jayaswal
33 taken place when he was 18 years old, and the event was marked by the beginning of the Vikrma era. Thus (470+18=) 488 years after Mahāvīra's Nirvāņa commenced the Vikrma era (58 B.C.). But the above 18 years were left out in the Jain Chronology. Thus, it was clearly a mistake to count a lapse of 470 years between Mahāvīra's Nirvāņa and the commencement of Vikrma era".
In this way, according to Dr. Jayaswal : Mahāvīra attained the Nirvāṇa in 488 +58=546 B.C.
A Critique
Dr. Jayaswal's view that the Buddhist allusions about Mahāyīra's predecease should not be neglected, is really justifiable. But his assuming an interval of two years between the deaths of Mahāvīra and Buddha on the basis of the popular belief about the Sāmgāma Suttanta, and his computing the interval between Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa and the Vikrma era by adding 18 years to the traditional number 470, are not based at all on confirmed sources. The famous historians', commenting on the view, write: “The suggestion can hardly be said to rest on any reliable traditionMerutunga2 places the death of the last Jina or Tīrthankara 470 years before the end of Saka rule and the victory and not birth of the traditional Vikrma.” Also the belief that Buddha had heard about Mahāvīra's Nirvāņa in Şāmagāma exactly two years before his own death, is a mere speculation.
1. Dr. R.C. Majumdar, Dr. H.C. Raychaudhari and Dr. K.K. Datta,
An Advanced History of India, p. 85. Vikrmarajjārambhā parao siri vīra nivyui māniyā ! Sunna muni veya jutto vikkama-kālau Jina-käla !! Vicāra Śreņi pp. 3, 4.
2.

Page #54

Mahāvīra and Buddha Dr. Raddha Kumud Mukherjee
A prominent historian Dr. Raddha Kumud Mukherjee, M.A., Ph.D., D. Litt., has treated the problem in a similar way. He, in his famous work, Hindu Civilization, has clearly accepted the seniority and the predecease of Mahavīra with respect to Buddha on the basis of the Buddhist Tripițakas. According to Dr. Mukherjee, these two facts are quite unequivocal. It is remarkable that he has approved his view of Mahāvīra's seniority to Buddha by citing several authoritative Buddhist works.?
As far as the dates of Mahāvīra and Buddha are concerned, he has wholly accepted the view of Dr. Jayaswal, according to which Mahāvīra died in 546 B.C. and Buddha in 544 B.C. But it should be noted that by accepting these dates for the Nirvāņa of Mahāvīra and Buddha, Dr. Mukherjee has created self-contradiction in his view of Mahāvīra's siniority to Buddha. For the total age of Mahāvīra's was 72, and that of Buddha was 80, so that, if the above chronology is accepted, Buddha would become six years older than Mahāvīra.
Thus, we can conclude that though Dr. Mukherjee has succeeded in proving Mahāyīra's siniority and predecease with respect to Buddha, he has failed to reconcile his chronology with these facts. Dr. Kamta Prasad Jain
Dr. Kamta Prasad Jain, a Jain Digambara scholar and the editor of Ahiṁsā Vāṇī, has also accepted the above date of Mahāvira and Buddha. Though he is of the view that Mahāvīra predeceased Buddha, he clearly denies the belief
1. Hindu Sabhyată (Tr. by Dr. V.S. Aggrawal) pp. 210-224. 2. Ibid., pp. 216, 223, 224.

Page #55

Dr. K.P. Jayaswal
that Mahāvīra was older than Buddha.1 In order to support his view, Dr. K.P. Jain has tried to falsify a Buddhist allusion that Buddha was younger than Mahāvīra, by interpreting it as an 'irony'2. But his effort is a good example of far-fetched and unnatural interpretation. Also he has taken no account of other explicit references3, found in the Buddhist texts, showing Buddha's juniority to Mahavira.
Dharmananda Kausambi
A well-known
Buddhist scholar, Dharmananda Kausāmbi has discussed the contemporaneity of Mahāvīra and Buddha in some of his books. It is his belief that Buddha was definitely the yougest amongst the seven religious teachers of his time, and, that his order (Samgha) was the smallest of all. Śrī Kauśāmbi has, however, neglected the chronological aspect of the problem. His argument is": "Even if Buddha's birth-date is taken back or forth by a few years, it would not deteriorate his character. The importance should be given not to the date of his birth, but to the circumstances existing before his birth, and to how he found out a new path in them."
35
The main reason of his neglecting the chronology seems to be that it is too equivocal to be determined.
Dr. Hoernle and Muni Jina Vijayji
Dr. Hoernle has also discussed this problem in the
1. Bhagavana Mahāvīra Aura Mahātmā Buddha, pp, 110-115. 2. Ibid, pp. 114, 115.
3. See, 'The Seniority of Mahāvīra' in Chapter VII of this book. 4. Bhagavana Buddha, pp. 33, 155.
5. Ibid., preface, p. XII.

Page #56

36
Mahāvīra and Buddha same way. According to him, Buddha died five years after Mahavira's Nirvāṇa (484 B.C.). This makes Buddha three years senior to Mahāvīra. The main bases of Dr. Hoernle's view are almost the same as those which are already discussed in the present chapter in context of other scholars and hence need no further discussion.
A well-known archaeologist Muni Jina Vijayji has accepted Mahāvīra to have predeceased Buddha on the basis of Dr. Jayaswal's view.
1. Hesting's Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, p. 261. 2. Vīra Nirvāṇa Samvat Aura Jaina Kälagananā, preface, p. 1.

Page #57

CHAPTER V
MUNI KALYANA VIJAYAJI
An extensive effort has been made by a famous Jain historian, Muni Kalyana Vijayaji to solve the present problem. His work on the subject, titled, Vira Nirvāņa Samvat Aura Jaina Kālagañanā is really a treasure book for the researchworkers. He has presented an independent solution to the problem of choronology of Mahāvīra and Buddha. His conclusion is that Buddha predeceased Mahāvīra by 14 years 5 months and 15 days. In other words, Buddha was 22 years older than Mahāvīra. The dates of the Nirvāna. given by Muni Kalyana Vijayaji is as follows:
Buddha's Nirvāṇa .....542 B.C. (May) Mahāvīra's Nirvāņa .....528 B.C. (November)
The date of Mahāvīra's Nirvāna--527 B.C.?, which is accepted by Muni Kalyana Vijayaji, is based on a reliable tradition as well as direct evidences. Muniji has proved this date by citing various authorities and giving many reasons.
Muni Kalyana Vijayaji has tried to prove that Buddha attained the Nirvāņa nearly fifteen years before Mahāvīra's Nirvāņa. He has argued that the story related in the Sāmagāma Sutlânta, that Buddha had heard about the
1. The date of Mahāvīra's Nirvana, though precisely is November
528 B.C., is usually written as 527 B.C., the reason being thai there is only an interval of two months between January, 528 B.C. and November 528 BC. Muni Kalyana Vijayaji has also used the date (527 B.C.) frequently in his book.

Page #58

38
Mahāvīra and Buddha
Mahāvīra's death, is not correct. According to Muniji, the event should have happened thus : When Mahāvīra was seriously injured by the Tejo-leśyā of his Ājivaka rival, Gośālaka, there prevailed a rumour that Mahāvīra would die within six months, as foretold by Gośālaka. This rumour would have reached Buddha, and consequently the story about Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa would have become prevalent.
Developing his line of argument, Muni Kalyana Vijayaji writes :2 "The belief of the Buddhist that Buddha died just one year after he had heard about Mahāvīra's deaths (precisely speaking, the rumour of the Mahāvīra's death) gives us a clue to find out the exact interval between the death of Mahāvīra and Buddha.” Further, he states that according to the Bhagavati Sūtra’, Mahāvīra died 16 years after having been injured by the Tejo-leśyā of Gośālaka. On this basis, he has fixed the date of Buddha's Nirvăna. Muni Kalyana Vijayaji also claims that the date of Buddha's Nirvāņa inferred by him, is coincident with the Ceylonese date of Buddha's death.
A Critique
As far as the date of Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa is concerned, Muni Kalyana Vijayaji's view seems to be quite correct. But it appears that in deciding Buddha's date, he has nearly depended on guesswork. The allusions of the Buddhist scriptures, which relate the event of Mahāvīra's death, have been much distorted by him. Such far-fetched inter
1. See, Bhagwati Sūtra, Šataka, p. 15. 2. Vira-Nirvana Samvat Aura Jaina Kālagananā, p. 15. 3. Sataka, p, 15. 4. Op. cit. p. 160.

Page #59

Muni Kalyana Vijayaji
39
pretations can never be regarded as historical facts. To call the date of Buddha's Nirvāṇa decided by him (542 B.C.), to be coincident with the Ceylonese date of the Buddha's Nirvāņa (544 B.C.)1 is a good example of far-fetching technique used by him. There is a clear difference of two years, which can not be regarded negligible, as he has asked us to do so.2
One of the evidence, adduced by him to show Buddha's seniority to Mahāvīra, is3: "In the Buddhist texts, wherever the rival teachers of Buddha are enumerated, the name of Niggantha Nataputta (i.e. Mahāvīra) appears in the end of the lists. This has also happened, perhaps, because Mahāvīra was the youngest amongst the rivals of Buddha”. The weakness of argument is obvious. Even Mahavira's name appears in the end of the list of Buddha's rivals, it does not at all mean that Mahāvīra was younger than Buddha. On the contrary, such references clearly indicate that all the six rivals (including Mahāvīra) of Buddha had already earned fame and influence long before Buddha appeared on the stage. As a matter of fact, it is also not true, that Mahāvīra's name appears in the end everywhere in such lists, as argued by Muni Kalyana Vijayjai. We find several such references in the Buddhist texts where Niggantha Nataputta is not the last".
Mahāvīra Middle aged, Buddha-young
In order to support his view, Muni Kalyana Vijayaji
1. See, The date of Buddha's Nirvana. in Chapter VII of this book. 2. Op. cit. p. 160.
3. Ibid, p. 3.
4. For example, in the Samyukta Nikaya, Dahar Sutta, 3-1-1, the name of Niggantha Nataputta appears in the third place; in the Digha Nikaya Samanyaphala Sutta, 1-2, it occurs in the fifth place (See the Hindi translation by Rahul Sankrityayana, p. 21).

Page #60

40
Mahāvīra and Buddha
has tried to misinterpret the Sammānnyaphala Sutta of the Digha Nikāya. Presenting his argument, he writes : “The minister of the king Ajātaśatru tells? him 'O king! This Niggantha Nātaputta is having an assembly (of Bhikkhus) and a crowd (of followers), and is the pontiff of the order, a well known teacher, a famous leader and considered excellent by the multitude. He is long-ordained and middleaged. This shows that Mahāvīra was middle-aged (i.e. fifty years old), while Buddha was old.” Now, if we study the above chapter with its fullest context, we find that it clearly describes Mahāvīra as middle-aged, and Buddha as young. For, the minister, here, intends to narrate the merits of Mahāvīra, and the word 'middle-aged', when used to exhibit a merit, should imply seniority. Secondly, in the above chapter of the Digha Nikāya, all the other rival teachers of Buddha viz. Gośālaka, Sañjya Balatthiputta, etc. are also described as “long ordained" and, ‘middle-aged', while in the context of Buddha, no such adjectives are
1. Op. cit. p. 4. 2. Avyam deva nigantho nātaputto samghi ceva gani ca
ganācāriyo ca pato yasassi titthakaro sādhusṁmato bahujanassa rattassū cirapavvajito addhagatavayo anupttāti. -Digha Nikāya, Vol. 1, pp. 48, 49 (Quoted from ibid, p. 4). In the original Pāli tex', here, two words--'addhagato' and 'Vayoanupattā' are used. We find a frequent use of these words in the Pāli texts. See, for example, the Culla-vagga, Samgha Bhedaka Khandaka, Suita Nipāta, Säbhiya Sutta ; Rhys Davids has translated these words as 'he' has accomplished a long journey ; and his term of life is nearly run.' (S B.E. Vol. XVII, p.......); V. Fousboll has translated them as 'advanced in years' and 'having reached old age' SB.E. Vol X. p. 26) Rahul Sankrityayana translates them as' adhvagata, and vauch anuprāpta' (See, his Hindi Translation).

Page #61

Muni Kalyana Vijayaji used. This also proves that Buddha was younger than all. the six rivals of him.
In connection with the above occasion the Sāmmannyaphala-Sutta of the Digha Nikāya further states that the king Ajātšatru, after having heard from his ministers about the merits of all the teachers went to Buddha for passing his. time in religious discussion. There he asked Buddha what the direct fruit of monkhood was, and also informed Buddha that he had asked the same question to the six religious teachers before. This was the first contact of Ajātáatru with Buddha. Are not all these facts enough to show that Mahāvīra and other five religious teachers were: older than Buddha ?
Testimony of the Later Works
One of the testimonies advocated by Muni Kalyana Vijayaji to defend his view is? : “The Jain traditional record of Sreņika and his queen Cellana shows that Śrenika. was first a follower of Buddha and afterwards was converted to Jain faith. “But, as a matter of fact, this account is based only on later Jain stories and hence it has no historical importance. Moreover, Muni Kalyaņa Vijayaji has not men-- tioned in which authoritative work, the said account is. recorded. In a similar way, he has choosen five statements from the later Buddhist work to show the seniority of Buddha, and that too without mentioning the original references. Most of those beliefs seems to have no connection with the Buddhist Pițakas. Some of them even contradict the facts of the Buddhist Pițakas.
1. Op. cit. p. 2. 2. Op. cit. p. 2.

Page #62

42
Mahāvira and Buddha
Contradictions.
The argument advanced by Muni Kalyana Vijayaji are not at all sufficient to prove the seniority of Buddha to Mahāvīra. In his effort to reconcile his view, he has contradicted some fundamental and well-established facts. For example, the Buddhist Tripitakas state Mahāvīra to have died earlier than Buddha. They also elucidate that Buddha himself had accepted his juniority to all the six religious teachers of his time. In addition to this, at several places Buddha's juniority is clearly indicated in them? Muni Kalyana Vijayaji has not been able to reconcile his view with all these facts. He has called everywhere such events as fabrication and falsifying. His trend regarding the Buddhist Tripițakas can not be called proper and justifying. It is to be noted that the historians-Eastern as well as Western, have recognised these scriptural evidences as fundamental facts in deciding the contemporaneity of Mahāvīra and Buddha. At some places Muni Kalyana Vijayyji has contradicted his own arguments. For example, in the beginning of his book, he has accepted the belief of the later Buddhist works that Buddha died in the 8th year of Ajātšatru's reign, as the basis of his view. Later on, he, on the basis of the fact that Gośāla's enumeration of the eight finilaties (Caramas) at the time of his death, was made sixteen years before the Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa, concludes. “Mahavira lived for more than sixteen years after the accession of Ajātšatru while Buddha died in the eighth year of Ajātšatru's reign."
1. See for detailed discussion of all these references, 'Seniority of
Mahāvīra' in Chapter VII of this book. 2. Op. cit. p. 7.

Page #63

Muni Kalyana Vijayaji
43 Now, as we have already seen, the belief that Buddha's Nirvāņa took place in the eighth year of the Ajātšatru's reign, is quite legendary and only based on later works. Even if we assume it to be correct for the sake of argument, it could not be reconciled with the fact that śreņika had died seventeen years before Mahavira's Nirvāņa.2 For if we assume Buddha's Nirvāņa to have taken place in the eighth year of Ajātšatru's reign, the interval between Buddha's and Mahāvīra's Nirvāņa could not exceed nine years. But we have seen that Muni Kalyana Vijayaji himself states this interval to be 141 years. Thus, there is a self-contradiction in his views. If there are such inconsistencies, how the solution put forward by Muni Kalyana Vijayaji can be considered acceptable? In the field of history, one has always to think from a historian's point of view.
Shri Vijayendra Suri
Recently, a valuable effort was made by Shri Vijayendra Suri to simplify the problem of contemporaneity and chronology of Mahāvīra and Buddha. His novel treatise}, dealing with the life of Mahāvīra, is really a treasure of historical facts. Shri Vijayendra Suri has proved in this book by adducing a lot of authoritative references that the date of Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa is 527 B.C.4 Without making any critical remarks, he has accepted 544 B.C. as the date
1. See also the Editor's Notes for the contradiction between the
belief and the Buddhist Scriptures. 2. See, for the establishment of this fact,-Contradictions' in chapter
III of this book. 3. Tirthankar Mahāvīra (in two Volumes) published by Kāšīnātha
Saraka Yasodharma Mandira, Bombay, 1963. 4. Tiriharker Mahāvīra, Vol. II, pp. 319-324.

Page #64

44
Mahāvīra and Buddha of Buddha's Nirvāņa. Thus, it can be said that Shri Vijayendra Suri has almost wholly supported the view of Muni Kalyana Vijayaji except the following modification. Regarding the allusion of Mahāvīra's death in the Buddhist texts, Shri Vijayendra Suri has accepted the view of Dr. A.L. Basham' that it was really the death of Gośālaka, and by mistake the Buddhist texts described it as Mahavira's death. This assumption of Shri Vijayendra Suri and Dr. Basham, is more speculative rather than logical. For, it is possible that for a while such misunderstanding could have prevailed, but how is it possible that it was retained by the Buddhists, in spite of the fact that Mahāvīra had lived for 16 years even after the death of Gośālka ? Again, as Shri Vijayendra Suri indicated}, the scholars believe that the Buddhist Pițakas were compiled two or three centuries after Buddha's Nirvāņa. Then, how could the above misunderstanding could have continued to exist for such a long time, even though both Mahāvīra and Buddha had lived contemporarily, preaching in the same limited area and both were the leaders of the same sramaņic tradition ?
There is also a self-contradiction in the view of Shri Vijayendra Suri. On one the hand he writes4 "Buddha, in fact, should have received the news of Gośāla's death in the form of Mahāvīra's death.” While on the other hand he states, both Buddha and Gośālaka had died sixteen years before Mahāvīra's Nirvāņa. But the Buddist texts indicate that Buddha had heard about Mahāvīra's death long before he (Buddha) died, then how is it possible that
1. Ajivikas, p. 75, 2. Tirtharkara Mahāvīra, Vol. II, p. 32. 3. Ibid. p. 326. 4. Ibid. p. 326. 5. Ibid. p. 326.

Page #65

Muni Kalyana Vijayaji
45 he would have really received the news of Gośāla's death ? If one accepts the veracity of the Pițakas' evidence that the above event had really taken place, it is not reasonable to believe another testimony of the Pițakas that the event had happened years before Buddha's death ?
Dr. Shanti Lal Shah
A valuable work, titled 'Chronological Problems,' written by Dr. Shanti Lal Shah, has been published in 1934 from Bonn (Germany)'. The object of this book, in the words of the author himself, is? : Not alone to fix the death-years of Buddha or Mahāvīra or the coronation date of Candragupta and Aśoka, nor to authenticate the Jain traditional account, but also to reconstruct the chronology of the whole history of Northern India from Ajātšatru to Kanişka is the aim of this book”. The author has strived much to reconstruct the chronology of the kings from Ajātsatru to Kanişka to fulfil his object. He has also succeded in giving historical form to some beliefs, but his effort to authorticate the Jain traditional belief here and there, shows rather his opinionated tendencies.
According to Dr. Shah, the dates of Mahāvīra's and Buddha's Nirvāņa, are 527 B.C. and 543 B.C. respectively. He has accepted these dates only by saying, “According to the traditional dates of the Nirvāņa of both Mahāvīra and Buddha, the former died 16 years after the later, (543527).” The traditional belief cannot be accepted as historical facts, unless they are substantiated by authentic evidences. But it seems that Dr. Shah has given no impor
1. Publisher's name is not printed on the book. 2. Chronological Problems, Preface, p. I. 3. Op. cit. p. 23

Page #66

46
Mahāvīra and Buddha
tance to this necessity. He has tried to reconstruct the whole chronology from Ajātsatru to Kanișka, only on the basis of these two traditional beliefs, without having attested their authenticity.
Also, he has accepted some beliefs of the later Buddhist works, without having considered their veracity. Consequently, many a unanimous historical facts have been contradicted in his new chronology. As for example, it is now almost undisputable that Candragupta's accession took place in 322 B.C. and also this date serves as a 'lighthouse in that dark period of Indian history. But, according to Dr. Shah's chronology the date of Candragupta's accession is 316 B.C. Regarding the date of Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa, it should be noted that 527 B.C. is traditionally as well as historically accepted date. But, the date of Buddha's Nirvāṇa 543 B.C. is only based on the Ceylonese tradition and is found to be unauthentic in the historical investigations.
Shri Shrichand Rampuria
Shri Shrichand Rampuria, a well-known literateur, has collected a good deal of data on the present problem, in his article titled 'A Discussion on the age of Mahāvīra and Buddha. He has elucidated both the sides of the controversy and criticized the prevalent views on the issue, but he has not reached a definite conclusion. However he seems to be more inclined to the view that Mahāvīra was older than Buddha. He has successfully refuted the arguments
1. Op. cit. p. 68. 2. See, 'Date of Buddha's Nirvāṇa in Traditions' in Chapter VII of
this Book. 3. Jain Bhārti (Weekly), year 12, No. 1, Jan. 1951 ; pp. 5—21.

Page #67

Muni Kalyana Vijayaji
of Dr. Jacobi as well as Muni Kalyana Vijayaji, which they advocated to prove Buddha's seniority to Mahāvīra.
Another remarkable point in the above article is that according to Shri Rampuria, there are only two allusions found in the Buddhist Piṭakas, which make the seniority of Mahāvīra a little dubious. Citing the first allusion, he writes: "The Buddhist scriptures clearly show that Mahāvīra was alive when Ajatśatru acceeded to the throne of Magdha.
47
"Again, they also state that once Mahavira had asked Abhaya Kumāra (The minister of Magdha) to see Buddha and to have a discussion with him. The subject of discussion was connected with the following event.3
"Then Devadatta, rising from his seat, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, having saluted the Lord with joined palms, spoke to the Lord; "Lord, the Lord is now old, worn, stricken in years, he has lived his span and is at the close of his life; Lord, let the Lord now be content to live devoted to abiding in ease here and now, let him hand over the order of monks to me. It is I who will lead the order of monks."
"Enough, Devadatta, please do not lead the order of monks. And a second time......And a third time Devadatta spoke thus to the Lord: "Lord the Lord is now old, worn, stricken in years.........It is I who will lead the order of monks.
"I, Devadatta, would not hand over the order of
1. Ibid. p. 15.
2. Majjhima Nikaya, Abhaya Kumāra Suttanta.
3. Vinaya Pitaka, Cullavagga, VII, 3-41. Translated by Oldenberg, S.B.E., Vol, XVIII.

Page #68

48
Mahāvīra and Buddha monks even to Sāriputta and Moggallana. How then could I to you, a wretched one to be vomited like spittle ?
Then Devadatta, thinking: 'The Lord in an assembly which included a king disparaged me by (using) the term, ‘one to be vomited like spittle,' while he extolled Sāriputta and Moggallana, angry, displeased, having greeted the Lord, departed keeping his right side towards him.
"And this was the first time that Devadatta felt malice towards the Lord.”
“Then Devadatta approached Prince Ajātšatru; having approached, he spoke thus to prince, Ajātsatru "Formerly prince, people were long-lived, now-a-days they are short-lived, and it is possible that you, while still a prince, might pass away. Well now, do you, prince, having slain your father, become king. I having slain the Lord, will become the Awakened One. And Prince Ajātšatru, thinking: Now, master Devadatta is of great psychic power, of great majesty; master Devadatta must know (what is right), having fastened a dagger against his thigh, at an early hour (although) afraid, anxious, fearful, alarmed, entered the (King's) private quarters forcibly. But the chief ministers in attendance in the private quarters saw him. Seeing hi n, they laid hold of him. These examining him, and having seen the dagger bound against his thigh, spoke thus to Prince Ajātšatru : What is it that you, prince, want to do?
“I want to slay my father.” “By whom are you being incited ?” "By master Devadatta”.
Then King Seniya Bimbisāra of Magadha spoke thus to Prince Ajātšatru.
“Why do you, prince, want to slay me?”

Page #69

Dr. K. P. Jayaswal
"Sire, I have need of a kingdom."
"If it be that you, prince, have need of a kingdom this kingdom is yours and handed over the kingdom to prince Ajātśatru.
Then Devadatta approached prince Ajātaśatru; having approached, he spoke thus to prince Ajātaśatru:
49
"Your majesty, command your men so that they deprive the recluse Gotama of life." Then prince Ajātśatru commanded his men saying: "My good men, do whatever master Devadatta says." Then Devadatta enjoined the men, saying: "Go along, friend, the recluse Gotama is staying at a certain road," and he set two men on that road, saying: "Whatever man comes alone along this road, having deprived him of life, come back by this road."
"Then that one man approached Devadatta; having approached, he spoke thus to Devadatta: Honoured sir, I am not able to deprive that Lord of life, that Lord of great psychic power, of great might."
"All right, friend, do not you deprive the recluse Gotma of life. I myself will deprive the recluse Gotama of life."
"Now at that time the Lord was pacing up and down in the shade of Mount Vulture Peak. Then Devadatta, having climbed Mount Vulture Peak, hurled down a great stone, thinking: With this I will deprive the recluse Gotama of life.' But two mountain peaks, having met, crushed that stone, and (only) a fragment of it, having fallen down, drew blood on the Lord's foot. Then the Lord, having looked upwards, spoke thus to Devadatta: "You have produced great demerit, foolish man, in that you, with your mind maliganant, your mind on murder, drew the Truth finder's blood." Then the Lord addressed the monks,

Page #70

Mahavira and Buddha
saying 'This, monks, is the first deed whose fruit comes with no delay accumulated by Devadatta since he, with his mind malignant, his mind on murder, drew the Truthfinder's blood."
50
"Now at that time there was a fierce elephant in Rājagṛha, a man-slayer, called Nālāgīri. Then Devadatta, having entered Rajagṛha, having gone to the elephant stable, spoke thus to the mahout: "We, my good fellows, are relations of the kings. We are competent to put in a high position one occupying a lowly position and to bring about an increases in food and wages. Well now, good fellows, when the recluse Gotama is coming along this carriage road, then, having let loose this elephant, Nālāgīri, bring him down this carriage road."
"Then the elephant Nälägīri, suffused by the Lord with loving-kindness of mind, having put down his trunk, approached the Lord; having approached, he stood in front of the Lord.
"Then the elephant Nālāgiri, having taken the dust of the Lord's feet with his trunk, having scattered it over his head, moved back bowing while he gazed upon the Lord.
"People looked down upon, critised, spread it about, saving: How evil is this Devadatta, how inauspicious, in that he tried to murder the recluse Gotama who is of such great psychic power, of such great might, and Devadatta's gains and honours declined; the Lord's gains and honours increased.
"Then Devadatta approached Kokālikā, Katamorakatissaka, the son of the lady Khanda, and Samuddadatta; having approached, he spoke thus to Kokālikā, Katamorakatissaka, the son of the lady Khanda, and Sammudda

Page #71

Dr. K. P. Jayaswal
datta : “Come, we, your reverences, will make a schism in the recluse Gotama's Order a breaking of the concord.”
“Then Devadatta together with his friends approached the Lord; having approached, having greeted the Lord, he set down at a respectful distance, Devadatta spoke thus to the Lord : Lord the 'Lord in many a figure speaks in praise of desiring little......whoever should eat fish and flesh, sin would besmirch him.”
“'Enough, Devadatta', he said. “Whoever wishes, let him be a forest dweller;whoever wishes; let him stay in the neighbourhood of a village whoever wishes, let him be a beggar for alms; whoever wishes, let him accept an invitation; whoever wishes, let him be a reg-robe wearer; whoever wishes, let him accept a householder's robes. For eight months Devadatta, lodging at the root of a tree is permitted by me. Fish and flesh are pure in respect of three points : if they are not seen, heard or suspected (to have been killed on purpose for him).”
Then Devadatta, thinking "The Lord does not permit these five items joyful, elated, rising from his seat with his friends, having greeted the Lord, departed keeping his right side towards him. Then Davadatta having entered Rājagļha with his friends, taught the people by means of the five items, saying: 'We, friends, having approached the recluse Gotama, asked for five items, saying: 'Lord, the Lord in many a figure speaks in praise of desiring little.'......'
"Monks heard these people who.....spread it about. Those who were modest monks......spread it about, saying:
“How can this Devadatta go forward with a schism in the Order, a breaking of the concord ?' Then these monks told this matter to the Lord. He said : 'is it true, as is

Page #72

52
Mahāvīra and Buddha
said, that you, Devadatta, went forward with a schism in the Order, a breaking of the concord?'
"It is true, Lord."
"Enough, Devadatta, do not let there be a schism in the Order, for a schism in the Order is a serious matter, Devadatta. Whoever, Devadatta, splits an Order that is united, he sets up demerit that endures for an aeon; he is boiled in hell for an aeon.
"Devadatta saw the venerable Ananda walking in Rājagṛha for alms-food; seeing him, he approached the venerable Ananda; having approached, he spoke thus to the venerable Ananda: 'Now from this day forth will I, reverend Ananda, carry out observance both in contradistinction to the Lord and in contradistinction to the Order of monks and will (so) carry out (formal) acts of the Order."
"As he was sitting down at a respectful distance, the venerable Ananda spoke thus to the Lord :
"Just now, Lord, I, having dressed in the morning, taking my bowl and robe, entered Rajagṛha for almsfood. Devadatta, Lord, saw me walking in Rajagṛha for almsfood; seeing me, he came up; having came up, he spoke thus to me: 'Nowfrom this day forth will I..... (so) carry out (formal) acts of the Order. To-day, Lord, Devadatta will split the Order. Then the Lord having understood this matter, at that time uttered this utterance:
"Easy is good for the good, good for the evil is hard, Evil for the evil is easy, evil for the noble ones is hard."
Now at that time as many as five hundred monks, Vajjis of Vesali, were newly ordained and were not properly versed; and these thinking: This is the rule, this is discipline, this is the Teacher's instruction, took voting tickets.

Page #73

Dr. K. P. Jayaswal
Then Devadatta, having split the Order, set out for Gaya Head taking as many as the five hundred monks. Then Sariputta and Moggallāna approached the Lord;
******
"Can there not be for you, Sariputta and Moggallāna compassion for these newly ordained monks? Go you along, Sariputta and Moggallana, before these monks fall into trouble and distress."
53
"Very well, Lord," and Sariputta and Moggallāna having answered the Lord in assent, rising from their seats, having greeted the Lord, keeping their right sides towards him, approached Gaya Head.
Then Sariputta and Moggallana, taking those five hundred monks approached the Bamboo Grove.
"Then the Lord addressed the monks, saying:... Monks because he is possessed of these eight qualities, Sariputta is fit to go a message.
"Monks, Devadatta, overcome and his mind controlled by eight wrong conditions, is doomed to the Downfall, to Niraya Hell, staying there for an aeon, incurable.

Mahavira had asked Abhaya Kumāra to question Buddha regarding the propriety of the harsh words spoken by Buddha to Devadatta. The question to be asked by Abhaya Kumara was framed thus: 'Can the Blessed One (Buddha) utter the words which are unpleasant to others?' If Buddha would have answered in negative, the cross-question was going to be: 'Then, why did the Blessed One utter harsh words to Devadatta ?' On the other hand, if Buddha would have replied to the above question in affirmative, the cross question would have been : 'Then, what is the difference between a layman and the Blessed One?
"The above occasion points out that Mahavīra should

Page #74

54
Mahāvīra and Buddha
have lived at least for some years after the event of Buddha's utterence of harsh words to Devadatta. It should also be noted that Devadatta had made the schism in Buddha's order after Ajāta satru's accession and that the news of Mahavira's death had reached Buddha during the life time of Sariputta. The Buddhist writers are unanimous about the fact that Sariputta had died during the life time of Buddha.1
"Now, all these fragments of truth, supplied by the Buddhist texts, when joined together, at once manifest that the event of Mahavira's Nirvāņa must have taken place in between the event of utterance of harsh words by Buddha and that of the death of Sariputta. Again, it is believed that Buddha died in the eighth year of Ajataśatru's reign. If this is true, Mahāvīra's death should have taken place not later than this period of Ajataśatru's reign, and not ealier than the commencement of his reign.
"Let us see, what conclusion we reach if we assume that Mahavira attained the Nirvana in the first year of Ajātaśatru's reign. This would mean that when Mahavira died at the age of 72, Buddha was 73 years old. Secondly, when Mahāvīra attained omniscence at the age of 42, Buddha was 43, and when Mahavira was initiated into the ascetic life at 30, Buddha was 31. Lastly, when Mahāvīra was born, Buddha was one year old."
The conclusion drawn by Shri Rampuria in the above passage holds good only if the belief that Buddha died in the eighth year of Ajātaśatru reign, is true. But Shri Rampuria has himself based his calculation on the dubious, statement "If this is true'. As already sh own before, the above belief
1. The Life of Buddha, by Edward J. Thomas, pp. 140, 141.

Page #75

Dr, K. P. Jayaswal
of Buddha's Nirvāṇa in the 8th year of Ajātasatru's reign is based on the erroneous chronology1 adopted in the Ceylonese Chronicle, Mahavamsa.2 Thus, the whole mention of the above conclusion that Mahāvīra was younger than Buddha, shatters down.
The second allusion giving rise to ambiguity with respect to Mahavira's seniority to Buddha, is described by Shri Rampuria as follows: When Buddha was lying on the death-bed, the following event took place1: "Now at that time, a mendicant named Subhadda, who was not a believer, was dwelling at Kusinara. And the mendicant Subhadda heard the news: "This is very day, they say, in the third watch of the night, will take place the final passing away of the Samana Gotama."
55
Then thought the mendicant Subhadda....... Now a certain feeling of uncertainity has sprung up in my mind and this faith have I in the Samaṇa Gotama, that he, me thinks, is able so to present the truth that I may get rid of this feeling of uncertainity.'
"Then the mendicant Subhadda went to the Śāla Grove of the Mallas, to the Upavattana of Kusinara, to the place where the venerable Ananda was.'
""
"And when he had come there he said to the venerable Ananda :......
1. For the detailed discussion of this, see, 'The Chronology' in chapter VII of this Book.
2. Ajätaśatru Mathame Yasse Buddhe Parinivvaute.
Mahāvaṁśa.
3. Op. cit. p. 17.
4. Maha-Parinivvāņa Sutta, Digha Nikaya Tr. by T.W. Rhys Davids S.B.E. Vol XI, p.p. 103 To 106.

Page #76

56
Mahāvīra and Buddha “Now the Blessed one overheard this conversation of the venerable Ananda with the mendicant Subhadda. And the Blessed One called the venerable Ananda, and said 'It is enough, Ananda : Do not keep out, Subhadda, Subhadda, Ānanda, may be allowed to see the Tathāgata. Whatever Subhadda may ask of me, he will ask from a desire for knowledge, and not to annoy me. And whatever I may say in answer to this question, that he will quickly understand."
“Then Subhadda, the mendicant, went into the place where the Blessed One was......And, when he was thus seated, Subhadda, the mendicant, said the Blessed One : ‘The Sramaņas and the Brahmaņs by saintliness of life, Gotama, who are heads of companies of disciples and students, teachers of students, well-known, renowned, founders of schools of doctrine, esteemed as good man by the multitude to wit, Puraņa Kassapa, Makkhali of the cattla-pen, Ajita of the garnient of hair, Kakkayana of the Pakhuda tree, Sanāya the son of the Belatth slave girl, Nigantha of the Nātha clan-have they all according to their own assertion, horoughly understood things ? Or have they not ? or are there some of them who have understood, and some have not ?"
"Enough Subhadda : Let this matter rest whether they, according to their own assertion have thoroughly understood things, or whether they have not, or whether some of them have understood and some have not! The truth, Ananda will I teach you. Listen well to that and give ear attentively, and I will speak.'
“ 'Even so, Lord !' said the mendicant Subhadda in assent, to the Blessed One.
“The above event raises a question in our mind

Page #77

57
Dr. K. P. Jayaswal whether Mahāvīra was alive up to the last day of Buddha's life. But again we may ask whether the question of Subhadda was about the living Tirtharkaras or merely a discussion of the views of deceased Tirtharkaras ?"
The above question shows that Shri Rampuria has vigilantly reflected upon the situation. It often happens. that such questions are put up only in the form a 'wont'. The above question of Subhadda definitely seems to be a. customary usage of speaking together the names of all the six Tirthankaras. This is also proved by the fact that the names of Makhali Gośālaka and Purana Kassapa also appear in the above list of Subhadda, whereas it is unanimously believed and definitely known that both of them had died long before Buddha's Nirvāņa.1
1. Mankhali Gośālaka died 16 years before Mahāvīra's Nirvana (see.
Bhagvati Sūtra, Šataka 15). In the chronology adopted by Dr. Jacobi, Dr. KP. Jayaswal, Muni Kalyana Vijayji, Dr. A.L. Basham, Gośālaka's death occurs before the Nirvāṇa of Buddha as well as that of Mahåvira. Purana Kassapa had also died during the life-time of Buddha ; see, Dhammapada Attha Katha, 4-2. (Also, Buddhacaryā, by Pt. Rahul Sankrityayana, p. 86.)

Page #78

CHAPTER VI
HISTORIANS' VIEW
Much has been written on the present issue by the Western as well as the Eastern historians. A detailed discussion of all the different views would be too lengthy a task to be discussed in the present treatise. We quote, here a view, which can be regarded as a theme of the present-day historians' approach. In An Advanced History of India, written by the top-most historians of India, Dr. R. C. Majumdar, Dr. H. C. Raychawdhri, and Dr. K. K. Datta, the subject has been elucidated to a great extent. It is to be noted that this work consisting of more than 1100 pages, has been prescribed as a text-book of history for the post graduate studies in almost all the Universities of India. In the first part Ancient India of the above treatise, in the context of Nirvāṇa the authors observe? : The event is said to have happened 215 years before the Mauryas, and 470 years before Vikrama. This is usually taken to refer to 528 B.C. But 468 B.C. is preferred by some modern scholars, who rely on a tradition recorded by the Jain monk Hemacandra that the interval between Mahāvīra's death and the accession of Candragupta Maurya was 155, and not 215 years. The latter date does not accord with the explicit statement found in some of the earlier Buddhist texts that Mahāvīra predeceased Buddha. The earlier date is also beset with difficulties. In the first place it is at variance with the testimony of Hemacandra, who places Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa only 155 years before Candragupta Maurya. Again some Jain texts place the Nirvāņa 470 years before the birth of Vikrama and

Page #79

Historians' View
59
not his accession and as this event, according to the Jains, does not coincide with the foundation of era of 58 B.C. attributed to Vikrama the date 528 B.C. for Mahāvīra's death can hardly be accepted as representing unanimous tradition. Certain Jain writers assume an interval of 18 years between the birth of Vikrama and the foundation of the era attributed to him and thereby seek to reconcile the Jain tradition about the date of Mahāvīra's Nirvāņa (58+18 +470=546 B.C.) with the Ceylonese date of the great dicease of Buddha (544 B.C.). But the suggestion can hardly be said to rest on any reliable tradition. Merutunga places the death of the last Jina or Tirthankara 470 years before the end of Saka rule and the victory, and not the birth of the traditional Vikrama. The date 528 B.C. for the Nirvana of the Jñātrika teacher can to a certain extent be reconciled with the Cantonese date of the death of Buddha 486 B.C. But then we shall have to assume that Mahāvīra died shortly after Buddha's enlightenment, forty-five years before the Parinivvāna, when the latter could hardly have become a renowned religious teacher of long standing as the Buddhist (canonical) texts would lead us to belief. Certain Jaina Sūtras seem to suggest that Mahāvīra died about sixteen years after the accession of Ajātaśatru and the commencement of this war with his hostile neighbours. This would place the Nirvāņa of the Jain teacher eight years after Buddha's death, as according to the Ceylonese chronicles, Buddha died 8 years after the enthronment of Ajātaśatru. The Nirvāņa of the Tīrthankara would, according to this view, fall in 478 B.C., if we accept the Cantonese reckoning (486 B.C.)
1. Here, instead of 'forty-five years' it should be 'forty-two years'. It seems that it is printed through a mistake (for 528-486=42; by taking 45, Buddha could not achieve enlightenment at that time.

Page #80

60
Mahāvīra and Buddha
as our basis, and in 538 B.C., if we prefer the Ceylonese epoch. The date 478 B. C. would almost coincide with that to which the testimony of Hemacandra leads us and place the accession of Candragupta Maurya in 323 B.C. which cannot be far from truth. But the result in respect of Mahāvīra himself is at variance with the clear evidence of the Buddhist canonical texts, which make the Buddha survive his Jñātrika rival. Tha Jain statement that their Tirthařkara dies some sixteen years after the accession of Koņika (Ajātaśatru) can be reconciled with the Buddhist tradition about the death of the same teacher before the eighth year of Ajātaśatru, if we assume that the Jain, who refer to Konika as the ruler of Campā, begun their reckoning from the accession of the prince to the Viceregal throne of Campa while the Buddhist make the accession of Ajātaśatru to the royal throne of Rājagļha the basis of their calculation."
Express their views on the date of Buddha's Nirvāna; the learned historians observe.1 “The date of his great decease (Parinivvāņa) is a subject of keen controversy." If, the Ceylonese tradition, that 218 years intervened between the Parinivvāna and the consecration of Priyadarśana (Asoka) has any value, the day cannot be far removed from 486 B.C., the starting point of the famous 'dotted record’ at Canton”.
A Critique
The most remarkable thing in the above view of the renowned historians is that they have given no place to the date of Buddha's Nirvāņa proposed by Dr. Jacobi, and Dr. Charpentier. As pointed out before, the main reason behind this is that during the long period that has passed
1.
Ibid, p. 84.

Page #81

Historians' View
61
since the publication of the view of Dr. Jacobi and Dr. Charpentier, new conceptions have entered the field of history, concerning the pre-christian period. With regard to the date of Mahāvīra's Nirvāņa, these historians have given importance to two fundamental facts and have insisted on their complete inviolation, while unravelling the present problem. The first is that out of the three dates, which are in vogue, 528 B.C. is the most veracious one. The second fact concerns the allusion of the Buddhist Pitakas regarding the death of Mahāvīra. Dr. R.C. Majumdar and his colleagues have definitely accepted the veracity of the Pițakas' statement that Mahāvīra predeceased Buddha. They have also expressed a need of such a chronology that can be reconciled with the above facts.
The only limitation of the above view of the famous historians is that though they have tried to make the lifeevents of Mahāvīra and Buddha consistent with each other, they have failed to present a completely consistent chronology. For, they have adopted 528 B.C. as the date of Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa and the Cantonese reckoning 486 B. C. as the date of Buddha's Nirvāņa thus creating an interval of 42 years between the Nirvāṇas of the two teachers. With such a long interval in between the deaths of Mahāvīra and Buddha, we cannot reconcile their life-events with each other. Thus we have to discover such a chronology which is compatible with the true life-events of Mahāvīra and Buddha

Page #82

CHAPTER VII
RESEARCH AND CONCLUSION
Need of an Exhaustive Research
An unprejudiced survey of the efforts made up to now by the various scholars shows that the problem of contemporaneity of Mahāvīra and Buddha, was, first of all, tried to be unravelled on the basis of general historical facts, then available. At a later stage, some scholars carried research into it in the light of the Buddhist scriptures, while others reached for its solution with the help of the Jain scriptures. The result was that on the one hand, the research based on general historical facts was in itself incomplete without bearing the imprint of the scriptural evidences, while on the other hand, the one-sided approach solely based on either the Jain scriptures or the Buddhist scriptures coloured the whole issue with sectarian tint. Some scholars regarded each and every word of the Jain scripture as a principle evidence and attached little significance to the Buddhist scriptures, whereas other did the vice versa. This cannot be the method of historical research. To arrive at the perfect solution, we have to think over the issue giving proportionate value to the general historical facts, the evidences of the Buddhist Tripitakas as well as the testimonies of the Jain Agamas. We shall also have to pay heed to the fact that the Agamas and the Tripitakas are taken to be the original and genuine evidences of the Jain and the Buddhist traditions respectively, while the evidences of the other traditional works are valid only so far as they conform to the original canons.

Page #83

63
Research and Conclusion The Evidences of the Buddhist Tripițakas
The testimonies of the Buddhist Tripițakas are the most. evident, obvious and direct ones out of the various evidences, which come across while considering the contemporaneity of Mahāvīra and Buddha. Hence, it necesstiates a thorough and systematic analysis of these evidences of the Buddhist Tripițakas. We consider them here one by one.
The Event of Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa in Tripitakas
The allusions of the Tripitakas in which the event of Mahāvira's Nirvāṇa is discussed, are as follows :
1. “The Exalted One (i.e. Buddha) was once dwelling among the Sakkas, at Sāmagāma. Now at that time, Nigantha Nātaputta (i.e., Mahāvīra) had just departed from life in Pāvā. After his death the Niganthas (i.e. the Jains) were divided into two groups. They making quarrels, making strife, falling into disputes were wounding each other with the weapons of the tongue, and were saying to each other...... 'You do not know this law of discipline’: I know this law of discipline'; 'You cannot know this law of discipline you are having false beliefs, I am having true beliefs'; 'My statement is meaningful, your's is not'; You uttered the matter to be spoken first; last' ; 'Your doctrine is lacking thoughtfulness, and hence, it is wrong'; 'You started the quarrel; you are unfit to be argued with'; 'Off with you! Stray you to be free from quarrel; 'If you can, end it. Thus the Niganthas of the Nātaputta were as if warring with each other.
“The disciples of the Niganthas who were wearing white robes and were householders were as much dis
1. Majjhima Nikāya, Samagama Sutta, 3/1/4.

Page #84

64
Mahāvīra and Buddha
interested in, disgusted with and indifferent to those Niganthas (monks) of the Nātaputta (Mahāvīra) as they were with respect to the religion of Nātaputta, which is not wellmeaning, not well-founded, unable to carry one to the Nirvāṇa, unable to bring peace of mind, not expounded by an enlightened. One baseless, (supported on) broken pillars, and unfit to be stayed in.
"At that time, Cunda Samanuddesa, after having passed his rainy-season at Pāvā, went to Sāmagāma and approached the venerable Ananda. Having approached, having greeted the venerable Ananda he sat down on one side. So seated, he said to the venerable Ananda. 'Re. verend Sir, Nigantha Nātaputta has just departed from lite in Pāvā. After his death, the Niganthas were divided into two groups. They are making quarrels......which is unfit to be stayed in. “Thereupon, the venerable Ananda said to Cunda Samanuddesa : “Reverend Cunda, this news is worthy to be presented to the blessed one. Come reverend Cunda, let us go to the Lord. Having gone there, let us, tell this matter to the Lord.'
“Yes, reverend Sir!'
“Then, the venerable Ananda and Cunda Samanuddesa approached the Exalted One, saluted and sat down at one side. So seated, the venerable Ananda said to the Exalted One: ‘Lord! This Cunda Samanuddesa says so, ‘Nagantha Nātaputta has just departed...............unfit to be stayed in. Now, Lord ! it seems to me that after (the Nirvāņa of) the Blessed One, such a dispute may not occur in the order. If it occurs, it will be for the disadvantage of the many, for the unhappiness of the many, for the unwelfare of the many, for the disadvantage and unhappiness of gods and men.'

Page #85

Research and Conclusion
65 "Do you, then believe, Ananda, that even two monks have different opinions regarding the truths, such as........., preached by me, after having directly experienced them.
“Lord! I do not see difference of opinions of even two monks regarding the truth, such as................ preached by the Lord. After having directly experienced them. But, Lord! when the body, which is sustained by the Lord, will exist after the Lord's Nirvāṇa, there may occur a dispute in the Order, regarding the livelihood and the rules of discipline. That dispute will be for the disadvantage. of gods and men'”.
2. "Thus have I heard :
"The Exalted One was once staying among the Sakkas, in the palace of the Sakkas in the Mango Grove called Vedhañña.
"At that time, Nigantha Nātaputta had just departed from life in Pāvā. After his death, the Niganthas (i.e. the Jains) were divided into two groups. They making quarrels, making strifes, were wounding each other with the weapons of the tongue and were saying to each other : 'You do not know this law................ unfit to be stayed in.'
"At that time Cunda Samanuddesa, after having passed...............unfit to be stayed in.'
"Thereupon the venerable Ananda.........to the Lord! “Yes, reverend, sir ! "Then, the venerable Ananda..... unfit to be stayed in.”
“Then the Lord said to Cunda: "Cunda, the religion (i.e. doctrines) of the order in which the master is not perfectly enlightened one is not well-meaning.......
1.
Dĩgha Nikaya, Pasadika Sutta 3/6.

Page #86

66
Mahāvīra and Buddha “Therefore, Cunda, the religion which has been preached by me after having attained the enlightenment; should be understood well by all of you unitedly and undisputedly.”
3. “Thus have I heard:
“The Exalted One while making a tour among the Mallas together with the large order of monks, numbering five hundred, arrived at Pāvā, a town of Mallas. He was staying there at Pāvā in Mango Grove of Cunda, the son of the silversmith.
“At that time, the new and lofty assembly-house (Saristhāgāra) of the Mallas the natives of Pāvā, was just built and no recluse (śramana) or Brāhmaṇa cr man had so far lived in it. The Mallas, the natives of Pāvā, heard- 'The Lord has arrived at Pāvā, while making tour among the Mallas, and the Lord is now staying in the Mango Grove of Cunda, the son of the silversmith. Then the Mallas, the natives of Pāvā, approached the Lord. They having approached and having greeted the Lord, sat down at one side. So seated, they said to the Lord, 'Lord ! A new and lofty assembly house...... ......So far lived in it, Lord! the Lord is requested to use it as a dwelling place for the first time. The Mallas, the natives of Pāvā will use it as a dwelling place after the Lord has used it as a dwelling place. This will be for the advantage and happiness of the Mallas, the natives of Pāvā, for a long time.'
"The Lord accepted the invitation by keeping silence.
“Then, the Lord, having dressed of taking his bowl and robe, together with the Order of monks, went to the assembly-house. Having gone......sat down.
1. Dīgha Nikäya, Sangiti Paryāya Sutta 3/10.

Page #87

67
Research and Conclusion “Then the Lord, having addressed the Mallas, the natives of Pāvā, by a talk on dhamma..... said. “Vāśiştās ! The night of yours is over. Now do what seems good to you.'
“Well, Lord ! ......the Mallas after standing up from their seats and greeting, went away.
"Then, in a little while after Mallas had gone away, the Lord, having seen the Order of monks completely soundless, addressed Sariputta............' Sāriputta, the Order of monks is completly soundless. Sāriputta, address the monks with a talk on dhamma ; my back aches and I will stretch it.'
“The venerable Sāriputta addressing the monks...... said: "Nigantha Nātaputta, your reverences, has just departed from life in Pāvā. After his death the Niganthas (i.e. the Jains) were divided in two groups. They making quarrels ......to be stayed in. But your reverences the dhamma (Doctrines) of our Lord is well-meaning, wellfounded, able to carry to the Nirvāņa (final emancipation)" able to bring peace of mind, and expounded by the Enlighted One. Here, all should stay without controversy and dispute, so that this Order may endure for a long time, and this will be for the advantage and happiness of many.......
“...... Then, the Lord, having awoke, addressed Sāriputta ......Excellent Sāriputta ! Excellent SẼriputta ! Sāriputta, you have given a good talk to the monks on the way of unity.'
"The venerable Säriputta said this; the master (Buddha) agreed with him (on this point). The monks also, having satisfied with the speech of Sāriputta, greeted it.”

Page #88

68
Mahāvīra and Buddha
A critical Examination
The three allusions quoted above, though they differ slightly in their outer forms, contain essentially the same idea. In the first allusion, Buddha, after having received the news of Mahāvīra's Nirvāņa preaches Ānanda ; and in the second one, he preaches Cunda. In both the allusions, the exhortations are worded differently, yet, they have the same intention. In the first and the second allusions, Buddha receives the report from Cunda in Sāmagāma (a village among the Sākayas) and also admonishes Ānanda and Cunda in Sāmagāma. In the third allusion, Säriputta preaches the monks the way of unity in Pāvā by referring to Mahāvīra’s Nirvāṇa and the quarrels in his order after that event.
Now, some scholars have not accepted the validity of these allusions, because in their view they contradict one another. But the reality is as follows: History may not accept each and every word of any scriptural evidence as true. If the fundamental point of any such allusion is unequivocal, history adopts it as a valid proof. As far as the above allusions are concerned, the actuality is that their essences are not at all contradictory. If in the first allusion, Ananda is admonished by Buddha and in the second one Cunda is given injuction, many an intelligible reason are possible for it. It is plausible that both of them might have heard the sermons simultaneously, but later on, the compilers of the first allusion by their own discernment, have deemed one of them more significant than the other and those of the second one by their own discernment might have deemed the vice versa. Another plausibility is that Buddha might have preached Ananda and Cunda one by one intermittently. The third allusion is already independent in itself and also confirms the first two allusions. For,

Page #89

Research and Conclusion
the whole incident of Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa referred to above had happened in Pāvā, and hence, it is quite natural that on arriving at Pāvā, Sāriputta must have referred to it.
All the three allusions bear the description of the ideological split among the disciples of Mahāvīra after his Nirvāņa. Though the Jain tradition itself does not give any direct clue to such an event, the possibility of some mutual discussion over the issue of Mahāvīra's successorship, cannot be ruled out. For, Indrabhūti (Gautama Svāmi) was the first Gañadhara i.e. chief disciple in the charge of the sub-order (Gaña) and hence, in normal state of affairs, he should have been ordained as Mahāvīra's successor, but, as the traditional history informs us, Sudharmā Svāmi, the fifth Ganadhara was ordained as the successor of Mahāvīra and that too, under the rule that Kevalin (i.e. omniscent) can not succeed to the Tīrthankara and Gautma Svāmi was a Kevalin while, Sudharmā Svāmi was not Kevalin. Now it is plausible that this rule might have come into existence as a result of the above discussion. The possibility of a sort of dispute between the monks who were the disciples of Gautam Swāmi and the monks who were the disciples of Sudharmā Svāmi, can also not be wholly ruled out. The fact that the Svetāmbar a tradition of the Jains regards Sudharmā Svāmi as the first successor of Mahāvīra, while, the Digambara tradition of the Jains regards Gautama Svāmi as the first successor, also affords a slight hint towards the above possibility. Moreover the wordings...... 'The disciples of the Niganthas who were wearing white robes' used in the Buddhist allusions quoted above, also points out to the dispute between the white clothed' (i.e. Śyetāmbaras) and 'the unclothed (i.e, Digam

Page #90

Mahāvīra and Buddha
baras) Nirgranthas.1 It is also probable that the Buddhists might have presented it in an exaggerated form in the above three allusions. It generally happens that the persons belonging to one sect often express even a trifling event of the rival sect in an exaggerated form. Dharmannda Kauśāmbi, the renowned Buddhist scholar has, accordingly, regarded the undermining delineation of Gośalaka in the Jain Agamas as an exaggeration.2
70
One of the arguments given by Dr. Jacobi against the authenticity of the above allusions is that the Mahaparinirvāņa Sutta, which affords us the account of the events of Buddha's last days, says nothing about this event. But this argument of Dr. Jacobi does not prove at all that the aforesaid allusions are inconsistent. At the most it only proves that the event described in the above allusions had not happened in the last days of Buddha's life.
Muni Kalyana Vijayaji has regarded the whole event alluded in the Buddhist Piṭakas to be a mere consequence of a misunderstanding of the Buddhist compilers. Muni Kalyana Vijayaji, in his interpretation of the above allusions of the Buddhist Tripitakas, has observed that the event of Mahāvīra's Nirvana, which is described in the Buddhist canons, is merely the result of the rumour prevalent at the time of Mahavira's serious illness due to the injury caused by the Tejolesya of Gośālaka. He has also traced the origin of the post-Nirvana dispute among the Nirgranthas (Jain
1. 1. The plausibility suggested is only conjectural. Yet it is possible on the basis of the hints given in the above allusions that the origin of the schism of the Jain order into Svetambara and Digambara Sects, may lie somewhere here. The researchers should pay attention to this.
2. See, Parsvanātha kā Căturyāma Dharma.
3. Op. cit. p. 11.

Page #91

Research and Conclusion
monks), referred to in the Buddhist allusions, to the schism in the Jain order caused by Jamālī during the life time of Mahāvīra. He writes: "The Buddhist delineation of the dispute and quarrel among the Niganthas after the Nirvāṇa of Mahavira, is, in fact, the grotesque form of the dispute. between Jamālī and Indrabhūtī narrated in the Jain canon Bhagvati Sūtra."
As already pointed out, such efforts of 'reconciliations' can, in no way, be regarded as historical. It is in fact, a misuse of the word 'reconciliation'. For, the whole event of Gośālaka's dispute with Mahāvīra had happened at "Śrāvasti', whereas the disputation between Jamali and Indrabhūti had taken place at Campā.3 Both the events have no concurrence of the place and time, nor, the subject of these events are related to each other. Hence, the argument of Muni Kalyana Vijayaji is not at all competent to prove the aforesaid three allusions as fallacious.
71
Again, it should be noted that all the three allusions explicitly mention Pāvā to be the place of the event of the Nirvāṇa, and the event of post-Nirvāṇa dispute. How is it reasonable to relate with them the events having taken place at 'Srāvasti' and Campā? Moreover, how can it be plausible that a rumour about the death of a distinguished man of the age like Mahāvīra, might be conected and might continue to have its sway over the people for so long a time? In addition to this, the whole event was narrated again by Sariputta during his speech, and that too in Pāvā itself. If Mahāvīra had not really died by that time, Säri
1.
Ibid. pp. 12-13.
2. Bhagvatī Sutra Sataka XV.
3. Ibid. Śataka IX, uddeśaka VI, sūtra 386-87.

Page #92

72
Mahāvīra and Buddha
putta must have been informed of the reality by the people of Pāvā.
If there had been even a single reference in the Jain Agamas contradicting the fact stated in the above three allusions viz. Mahāvīra predeceased Buddha, it could have created a doubt over the credibility of these allusions. But, because we do not get any such contradictory description in the Jain Agamas, we should not doubt the veracity of these allusions. Secondly, had there been a fourth allusion in the Buddhist Tripitakas, stating something about Buddha's predeceasing Mahāvīra, it would have been necessary for us to ponder over the above three allusions seriously. But in absence of any such contradictions, it would not in the least be inequitable to accept these allusions, which are unequivocal in themselves, as the valid testimonies for the discovery of truth.
The Events of Mahāvīra's Seniority in Buddhist Tripitakas
Besides the above quoted three allusions, the Buddhist canons are replete with numerous allusions which show that Mahāvīra was older than Buddha. Most of the scholars, so far, have mainly discussed the aforesaid three allusions only. Only God knows why they have lost sight of other relevant allusions wherein it is explicitly stated and even Buddha himself accepts that he is the youngest of all the religious leaders of his time. We quote here three such allusions1: "Thus have I heard :
The Exalted one was once staying near Savatthi, at the Jeta Grove, in Anathapindika's Park. Now the king, Kosalana Pasenadi, came into the presence of the Exalted
1. Samyutta Nikaya, Dahara Sutta 3/1/10 (Cf. The Book of the Kindred Sayings, Tr. by Mrs. Rhys Davids, vol. 1, pp. 93-96.)

Page #93

Research and Conclusion
73
One, and after exchanging greetings with him and compliments of friendship and courtesy, sat down at one side. So seated he said to the Exalted One :
“Does master Gotama also make no claim to be perfectly and supremely enlightened ?
“If there be anyone, sire, to whom such enlightenment might rightly be attributed, it is I. I verily, sire, am perfectly and supremely enlightened.'
“But, master Gotama, there are recluses and brahmins who also like yourself) have each their order of disciples, their attendant followers, who are teachers of disciples, well-known and reputed theorizers, highly esteemed by the people-I mean Purana-Kassapa, Makkhali Gośāla of the Cowstall, the Nigantha Nätaputta Nata's son ie. Mahāvira. Sañjaya Belatthi's son, Kaccāyana of the Pakudhas, Ajita Keśa Kambli of the Hairblanket. Now they, when I have asked this same question of them, have not laid claim to perfect and supreme enlightenment. How can this be ? For (as compared with them) master Gotama is young in years, and is a novice in the life of religion.'
“There are four young creatures, sire, who are not to be disregarded or despised, because they are youthful. What are the four ? A noble prince, a snake, a fire, an almsman (Bhikkhu). Yes, sire, these four young creatures are not to be disregarded or despised because they are youthful.'
"Thus spake the Exalted One. And the Blessed One so saying the Master spake again on this wise :
"A princely youth, by birth with fortune blest, Off spring of well-born families, let none Disdain for being youthful nor despise.

Page #94

174
Mahāvīra and Buddha
The time may come when he, as lord of men, Comes to his heritage, and in his wrath May with a despot's weapons seek revenge With heavy hand. Hence from such attitude Let everyone who guards his life refrain. "Or if a man do walk within the woods And see a snake glide by, let him not say Disdainful : 'Tis a young one,' and despise. In divers shapes and with an ardent force Fareth the snake. Should he attacking strike, He bites the heedless, be it man or maid, No matter when. Hence from such attitude Let everyone who guards his life refrain. "A fire ablaze with appetite immense And swarthy trail let none despise as young Since it was lit, nor hold of no account. If it but win to fuel, growing great, It may attack the heedless, man or maid, And burn no matter when. From this therefore Let everyone who guards his life refrain. “The forest burnt by fire, the swarthy trailed, After the lapse of many nights and days, In shoots and seedlings springs once more to life. But he whom almsman, strong in righteousness, Burneth with ardent flame, may look in vain For child, or offspring ‘among his stock. No wealth His heire may find ; childless and without heirs, Like to a palm-tree stump such men become.
Hence with these four-the serpent and the fire, The prince of high estate, the saintly friarLet the wise man, his own goodwill in sight, Conduct himself as seemly is and right.

Page #95

Research and Conclusion
75 “When these things had been said, King Pasenadī, the Kosalan, spoke thus to the Exalted One :
"Most excellent, Lord, most excellent ! Just as if a man were to set up that which has been thrown down, or were to reveal that which is hidden away, or were to point out the right road to him who has gone astray, or were to bring a lamp into the darkness so that those who have eyes could see external forms- just even so, Lord, has the truth been made known to me, in many a figure by the Exalted One. I, even I, Lord, betake myself to the Exalted One as my refuge, to the Norm and to the Order. May the Exalted One accept me as a follower, as one who from this day forth as long as life endures has taken his refuge therein.”
At one time Bhagavān i.e. Buddha was dwelling at Rājagsha in Venuvana, in Kalandakanivapa. At and that time some questions were recited to Sabhiya, the Paribbājaka (a wandering mender mendicant), by an old benevolent diety (who had in a former birth been a relation of his) : 'He who, O Sabhiya, be it a śramaņa or a Brāhmaṇa, explains these questions to thee when asked, near him you should live a religious life.'
“Then Sabhiya the Paribbājaka having learnt the questions from the deity, went to whatever Sramaņas and Bhrāmaņas there were, who had an assembly (of Bhikhus), and a crowd (of followers), and were well-known teachers famous leaders and were considered excellent by the multitude, such as (1) Pūraņa, Kassapa (2) Makkhali Gośāla, (3) Ajita Kesakambali, (4) Pakuddha Kaccayana, (5) Sañjaya Belatthiputta, and (6) Nigantha Nātaputta, (i.e. Mahāvīra). Those he want to and after going to them, asked these questions. They, being asked the questions by Sabhiya, the Paribbījaka, did not succeed (in answering

Page #96

76
Mahāvīra and Buddha
them), and not succeeding they showed wrath and hatred and discontent, and they also in return put questions to Sabhiya the Paribbājaka.
“Then this came to the mind of Sabhiya, the Paribbājaka : 'Whatever Šramaņas and Brāhamaņas there are, that have an assembly (of Bhikkhus) and a crowd of followers), and are well-known teachers, famous leaders, considered excellent by the multitude, as Purana Kassapa, Makkhali Gośāla, Ajita-Keśa Kambali, Pakuddha Kaccāyana, Sañjaya-Ballatthiputta, and Nigantha-, Nātaputta they being asked questions by me, did not succeed in answering them, and not suceeeding they showed wrath and hatred and discontent, and they also in return put questions to me in this matter, surely I think I shall go back to what I have left, and enjoy sensual pleasures.'
“Then this came to the mind of Sabhiya, the Paribbājaka: “This Sramana Gautama, i.e. Buddha, too has an assembly (of Bhikkhus) and a crowd (of followers), and is a wellknown teacher, a famous leader, and is considered excellent by the multitude ; surely I think I shall go to him and ask him these questions'. Then this came to the mind of Sabhiya, the paribbājaka. Whatever Šramaņas and Brāhmaṇas there are, decayed, old aged, advanced in years havings reached old age, experinced elders, long ordained having assemblies (of Bhikkhus) crowds (of followers), being teachers well-known, famous leaders, considered excellent by the multitude, such as (1) Purana Kassapa, (2) Makkhali Gośāla, (3) Ajita Keśakambalī, (4) Pakuddha Kaccāyana, (5) Sañjaya Belatihiputta : and (6) Nigantha Nātaputta, i.e. Mahāvīra) and they, being asked questions by me, did not succeed (in answering them) and not succeeding they showed wrath and hatred and discontent and they also in return put questions to me in this matter. (I should like to know) whether

Page #97

Research and Conclusion
77
Śramana Gautama (i.e. Buddha), will be able to explain them to me, for Śramaṇa Gautama is both young by birth and new in ascetic life.' Then this came to the mind of Sabhiya the Paribbājaka: 'Sramana Gautma is not to be slighted because he is young; even if the Śramaņa Gautama is young, yet is mighty and powerful: surely I think I shall go to Śramana Gautama and ask these questions.""
3. Thus have I heard :
"Once the Exalted One was staying at Rājagṛha in the Mango Grove of jivaka Komarbhacca, together with the large order of monks, numbering one thousand two hundred and fifty.
Now at that time, when it was the night of the fullmoon day of the observance-day, the full-moon day being the Kaumudi of rainy-season (i.e. the full-moon day in the month of Asvina or Kārtka2, Ajātaśatru, the king of Magadha, the son of Vaidehī, surrounded by the ministers of the kingdom, was sitting on the terrace of the best palace. Then king Ajātaśatru expressing praise of the observance day (i.e. the full-moon day), said 'Ah'!
1. Suita Nipata Sabhiya Sutta, III-6 (Cf. Tr. by. V. Fausboll S.B E., vol. X, part II, pp. 85-86). It may be remarked here that in the canoncial literature of the Buddhist, the Mahāva of the Sutta Nipata is considered to be very old. V. Fausboll has observed: "The collection on discourses of (Sutta Nipäta) which I have here translated is very remarkable, as there can be no doubt that it contains some remains of primitive Buddhism, consider the greater part of Mahāvagga Sutta Nipäta) and nearly the whole of, Atthaka vagga as very old, (Cf. op. cit. Introduction p. I).
2. Digha Nikaya, Sämnnayaphala Sutta, 1/2. (Cf. Dialogues of the Buddha, Tr. by T.W. Rhys Davids, vol. I p. 51).
3. Kaumudi is full-moon day in Aśvina or Kartika Cf. Sanskrit-English Dictionary of Prin Vaman Shivaram Apte Ed. by P.K. Gode and C.G. Karve part I, p. 611.

Page #98

Mahāvīra and Buddha How charming is the night illuminated by the light of
the full-moon ! How beautiful is the night illuminated by the light of
the full moon !! How handsome is the night illuminated by the light of
the full-moon !!! How pleasant is the night illuminated by the light of
the full-moon !!! How exquisite is the night illuminated by the light of
the full-moon !!! (At such a pleasant time) to which Sramaņa (recluse) or Brāhmin should we go to pass our time in the company of the good (man), so that his company may please our minds ?'
“On his saying so one of the ministers of his kingdom said to Ajātasatru, the king of Magadha the son of Vaidehi : "Sire ! there is one Pūraņa Kassapa, who has his order of disciples and his crowd of followers who is the teacher of disciples, well-known and reputed founder of a school of doctrine, esteemed as good man by the multitude, experienced, long-ordained, advanced in years and having reached old age. The king, sire, should have a religious discussion with Pūraņa Kassapa. The religious discussion with Pūraņa Kassapa even for a little time will delight your heart'. On his saying so, Ajātaśatru, the king of Magadha the son of Vaidehi, kept silence.
“Anotlier minister said this to Ajātasatru the... Vaidehi : 'Sire, there is one Makkhali Gośāla (i.e, of the cattle pen) who has his order of disciples, ... ... reached old age. The king, sire, should have religious discussion with this Makkhali Gośāla. The religious discussion with Makkhali Gośāla even for....., kept silence.

Page #99

Research and Conclusion
"Another minister said this......there is one Ajita Keśa Kambali who has......old age. The king with this Ajita Keśakambali.... The religious discussion with Ajita Keśakambali even for...... kept silence.
"Another minister said this......there is one Pakuddha Kaccayana who has......old age. The king......with this Pakudda Kaccayana. The religious discussion with Pakuddha Kaccayana even for......kept silence.
79
"Another minister said this...... there is one Saññajaya Belatthiputta who has.........old age. The king......with this Saññajaya Belatthiputta. The religious discussion with Saññajaya Belatthiputta even for...... kept silence.
"Another minister said this......there is one Nigantha Nataputta (i.e. Mahavira) who has......old age. The king ......with this Nigantha Nataputta. The religious discussion with Nigantha Natputta even for......kept silence.
"At that time Jivaka Komarabhacca was sitting silently near Ajätaśatru, the king of Magadha, the son of Vaidehi. Then Ajataśatru, the king......Vaidehi, said to Jivaka Komārabhacca. 'Why, good Jivaka you are keeping complete silence?
"Sire, this Lord the Perfected One and the wholly Awakened. One (i.e. Buddha is staying in my Mango Grove together with a large order of monks numbering one thousand two hundred and fifty.
The auspicious fame of such Lord Gautama has spread thus-he is the Lord the Perfected One, the wholly Awakened One, having knowledge and conduct, having reached the best life (Sugata), knower of the world, an unparalleled whip for restraining people (i.e. for bringing people on the virtuous path) the instructor (i.e. preacher) of the Gods and men, and the Enlighted One Sire; Your Majesty should go

Page #100

$80
Mahāvīra and Buddha
to him and have religious discussion with him. By having a religious discussion with him, perhaps Your Majesty's heart will be delighted."
A Critical Examination
These three allusions are so explicit in themselves to prove the seniority of Mahāvīra to Buddha that it would be entirely needless to reconcile or explain them.
In this way the three allusions (quoted before) prove that Mahavīra predeceased Buddha and the other three allusions (quoted now) prove that Mahavira was senior to Buddha, and that too not only from the point of view of age but also from the point of view of knowledge, influence and period of Monkhood.
These allusions themselves speak eloquently that when Buddha had just started his preaching work, Mahāvīra, by that time, had already done a good deal in that direction.
The veracity of the above allusions is also proved by the fact that the Buddhist Tripitakas themselves accept the juniority of Buddha. If Buddha had been regarded senior from the point of view of age, period of Monkhood and influence by Buddhist Tripiṭakas, we would have questioned their credibility. On the ground that the compilers of the Buddhist scriptures might have done so in order to enhance the glory and fame of their religious preceptor, but acknowledging the juniority of one's religious preceptor cannot be regarded as a means of fostering the sentiment of sectarian egoism.
The already stated fact. viz. Mahāvīra was a senior, contemporary of Buddha, is also substantiated by the fact that the Jain canons are as reticent about Buddha as the

Page #101

81
Research and Conclusion Buddhist canons are eloquent about Mahāvīra. possible reasons thereof are as follows.
The
A budding religious leader generally speaks much about his senior rivals. He has psychologically a feeling of equating himself with his senior rivals, and, hence, he endeavours to show himself superior and his rivals inferior. Consequently, he refers every now and then to the weak points of his rivals. This very process is reflected in the Buddhist canons which are replete with the allusions about Nigantha Nātaputta (and also other five religious teachers) and the doctrines of the Niganthas (i.e. the Jains)'. On the contrary the Jain canons do not mention even the name of Buddha as the sponsor of Buddhism. This also signifies the same fact that those who have already earned the name and fame and become dignifying and dominating figures, shrink from giving an importance to the rival budding power all of a sudden.
Another possible reason is that the teachings of Mahāvīra had already been complied in the form of 12 Arigas, comprising the most original portion of the Jain canonical literature, by the eleven Gañadharas soon after Mahāvīra's attainment of omniscence. Now because Buddha's advent was not even 'in the air' at that time, how could we expect to find allusions in those canons about the life of Buddha ? Also, on the other hand, if Buddha were really a senior contemporary of Mahāvīra, how the Jain canons could
1. See, for the detailed discussion of these allusions the author's
article titled Päli Värnaya Mem Ehagavāna Mahüviru in Bhik suSmrti Grantha, part II, pp. 6-10.

Page #102

Mahāvīra and Buddha have refrained from referring to the events of Buddha's life.
Again because Buddha was a junior contemporary of Mahāvīra and the Buddhist canons were compiled after the Nirvāṇa of Buddha by his perfected disciples, it is quite natural that the Tripitakas afford us with a lot of allusions, about Mahāvīra's life. Contemporaneity and Chronology
On the basis of the facts discussed in the preceding sections, we indubitably reach the conclusion that Mahā. vīra predeceased Buddha and that Mahāvīra was a senior contemporary of Buddha. Now it remains to decide the period of their contemporaneity i.e. how long they lived in the presence of each other. But we can know this completely only after chronologizing the chief events of their life. Though the Āgamas and the Tripițakas afford us the account of the days and the months of their birth and death, they do not mention the years of these events in terms of any prevalent era. This might have happened on account of the fact that no such systematized era, was in vogue at that time. Thus the only means at our hand to determine their correct dates is the use of other chronicles after having attested their veracity on the touchstone of history.
First we shall consider the chronology of Mahāvīra, for it is rather more unequivocal and less controversial than that of Buddha.
1.
Though in the Jain canons such as the Sūtrakrtănga Sutra, etc., we find a mention of some beliefs of the Buddhists, it is quite negligible. Also. because the later patriarchs of Jainism possesing the knowledge of the Puryas (the most important portion of the Jain canons, but not available now) had made additions and altertations in the original Angas, the above stated fact is not violated.

Page #103

Research and Conclusion
83
Chronology of Mahāvīra : In the foregoing chapter it has already been elucidated that the most unequivocal date of Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa is 527 B.C. This date is substantiated by an extraordinary evidence: History accepts 322 B.C. as the date of the accession of Candragupta Maurya to the sovereignty of Magadha.? The historians call this date a 'light house' in that dark period of Indian history. They decide the chronology of hundred of years, posterior and prior to this period, on the basis of this unanimously accepted and definitely verified date. According to the chronology adopted by some ancient Jain traditional works, such as Titthogali Painnaya, Titthodhara Prakraņa. Merutunga's Vicāra-śreņi, etc., the event of Mahāyīra's death had taken place 215 years before Candragupta's accession. It should also be remarked here that the above works speak of Candra
1. Many an authoritative historians and scholars have approved
this date; see for example, (a) Mahāma hopadhyāya Raya Bahādura Gouri Sankara Oyra,
Jain-Satya Parakāśa Vol. II, Nos. IV-V, pp. 217-81. )) Dr. Baladeva Upadhyāya, Dharma Aura Darśana, p. 89. (c) Dr. Vasudeva Sharan Agraval, 7'īrtharikara Mahāvīra. Vol. II,
preface, p. XIX. (d) Dr. Hira Lal Jain, Tattva Samuccaya, p. 6. (e) Mahāmahopādhyāya Pt. Vishveshar Nath Rey, Bhārata ke
Prācina Rājavaṁśa, Part II, p. 436. 2. Candragupta Maurya and His Times, by Dr. Radha Kumud
Mukherjee, pp. 44-46; Bhārata kā Brhata Itihasa part 1, (Prācīna
Bhārata), by Shrinetra Pandeya, 4th Edition, p. 242. 3. To these sources, Indian history is also indebted for what has
been called 'the Sheet-anchor' of its choronology, for the startingpoint of Indian chronology is the date of Candraguptā's accession to sovereignity. --Candragupta Maurya and His Times, by Dr. Radha Kumud Mukherjee, p. 3. Also, see, Ancient India, by Rapson, pp. 20-21.

Page #104

84
Mahāvira and Buddha
gupta's accession to the throne of Avanti, and not that of Magadha. It is also a historical fact that in 312 B.C. (ie. 10 years after Candragupta's accession to the throne of Magadha) Candragupta acquired the kingdom of Avanti. Thus, the Jain chronology and the historical chronology endorse each other and the date of Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa is confirmed in 312+215=527 B.C.
The Vikrama Era
The above date of Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa is also supported by the historical dates of Vikrama, Saka and Gupta eras. The ancient chronicles and works of Jain tradition state that Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa took place 470 years before the
1.
The date 313 B.C. for Candragupta's accession, if it is based on correct tradition, may refer to his acquisition of Avanti in Malva, as the chronological datum found in a verse, where the Maurya king finds mention in the list of successors of Pālaka, the king of Avanti. -Political History of Ancient India, by Dr. H.C. Raychaudhuri The Jain date 313 B C., if based on correct tradition, may refer to his acquisition of Avanti (Malva). -An Advanced History of India, by Dr. R.C. Majumdar, Dr. H.C. Raychaudhuri, K.K. Datta, p. 99. Although the date 313 B.C. for Candragupta's accession is based on correct tradition it refers to his victory over Malva or Avanti, because the verse, in which this chronology is adopted, mentions Candragupta in the list of the successors of king Palaka of Avanti. -Shrinetra Pandey, op. cit, pp. 245-246.

Page #105

Research and Conclusion commencement of the Vikrama era. According to the unanimous opinion of historians, the Vikrama era started
1. (a) Jaṁ rayanim Kālagao, arihā titthařkaro mahavīro.
Tam rayaņim avamivai, ahistto pālao rāyā !! 1 !! Satthi Pälayaranno (60), Panavannasayam tu hoi nandānam
(155) Asthasayam muriyāṇam (108), tīsa cciya pūsamittassa
(30) !! 2!! Balamitta-bhānumitta saţthi (60), vari-sāṇi catta (4) nahavăne! Taha gaddabhilla-rajjam terasa (13), varisa sa gassa cau
(varisa) (4) !! 3 !! Śri Vikramādityaśca pratibodhitastadrājyam tu śrī
vīrasaptati catuṣtaye (470) sarnjātam !" -Tappăgaccha Pattāvali by Dharmasāgara Upādhyāya (Ed.
and Tr by Panyas Kalyan Vijayji), pp. 50-52. (b) Vikramarajjārambhā parao siri vīra nivvui bhaniyā ! Sunna muniveya jutto vikkama kālau jinakålo !!
Vikramakālājjinasya vīrasya kālo jinakālaḥ śunyaḥ (0), muni (7), veda (4) yuktaḥ! Catvārimśatāni saptatvadhikavarsāņi śrimabāvīravikramadityayorantaramityarthaḥ ! Nanvayam kālaḥ vīravikramayoḥ katham ganyate, ityäha vikramarājyārambhāt parataḥ paścāt sriviranirvṛttiratra bhanitā ! Ko bhāvah srīvīranirvāṇadinādanu,470 varše vikramādityasya rajyārambhadinamiti !
-Vicăra-śreņi by Merutunga pp. 3-4. (c) Punarmannirvānāt saptyadhikachatu satavarse (470) Ujj
ayinyām srivikramādityo rājā bhavişyati......svanāmnă ca samvatsarapravștim karişyati ! - Śrī Saubhāgyapañcamyādiparvakathāsamgraha, Dīpamāli
kā Vyākhyāna, pp. 56 57. (d) Mahāmukkha gamanão pälaya-nanda-candaguttā iräisu
bolinesu causaya satterahim vikkamäicco Täyā hohi ! · Tattha satthi varisanam pālagassa rajjam, panapannam nandānam, atthottara sayam moriyam vansānam, tīsam pūsamittassa, satthi, balamitta-bhāņumittanam, calisam naravāhanasya, terasa geddabhillassa, cattāri sagassa! Tao vikkamāi
cco !
Vividha tirthakalap (Apāpabrhat-kalpa), pp. 38-39.

Page #106

86
Mahāvīra and Buddha in 57 B.C.1 This clearly implies that Mahāyīra died in 57+470=527 B.C. The Saka era
According to both the traditions of Jains-Svetāmbara and Digambara, the Saka era commenced 605 years and 5 months after Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa.? According to history,
1. An Advanced History of India, p. 118, Gupta Samrajya kā Itihasa,
Vol. I, by Dr. Vasudeva Upadhyaya, pp. 182-183. 2. (a) Jam rayaņiṁ siddhigao, arahă titthamkaro Mahāvīro !
Tam rayanimavantie, abhisitto pālao rāyā !! 620 !! Palaya ranno satthi, puņa pannasayam viyāni nadāņam ! Muriyāņam satthisayam, paņatīsā pūsamittānam (ttassa) !!621!! Balamitta-bhānumittä, satthā cattaya honti nahasene ! Gaddābhasayanyegam puna, padivanno to sagorāyā. !! 622 !! Pañca ya māsā pañca ya, vāsā chachceva honti vāsasayā ! Parinivvuassarihato, toauppan (Padivanno) sago rāyā !! 623 !!
---Titthogāli Painnaya, Vss. 620-623. (6) Shri vīranirvrtervarşah şadbhiḥ pancottaraiḥ sataih !
Sāka samvatsarasyaiśā pravșttirbharate(a)bhavat !! - Merutunaga's Vicāra-Śreņi (Jain Sahitya-Samsodhana,
Vol. II, Nos. III-IV, p. 4). (c) Chttham vāsāna saehim pañcāhim vāsehim pañcamāsehim !
Mama nivvāna gayassa u upājjissai sago rāyā !!
--Nemi Candra's Mahāvīra Cariyam, leaf, 94-1. Vs. 2169, (d) Panachassayavassam panamāsajudam gamiya vira-nivvuido!
sagarājo to kakki Cadunavatiya-mahiya sagamāsam !! 850 !!
--Nemicandra Siddhänta-cakravarti's Trilokasāra Vs. 65. (e) Varşāņām şațśatīm tyaktyā pañcāgrām māsapañcakam !
Muktim gate Mahāvire sakarājastato(a)bhavat !! -Jinasenācārya's Harivamsa Purāņa, Adhyâya IX Vs. 549. (f) "Nivvāṇe vīrajine chavvāsa sadesu pancvarisesu!
Panamāsesu gadesu samjādo saganio ahavā !!
-Tiloyapannatti, part 1; 341. (8) "Parca ya māsā pamca ya vāsā chacceva honti väsasasayā ! Sayakāleņa ya saniya thaveyavvo tado rāsi !!
Dhavalā, (Jain Siddhānta Bhavana, Āră), leaf 537.

Page #107

Research and Conclusion
87
the Saka era started in 78 A.D. Hence, the date of Mahā vīra's Nirvāņa comes out to be, 605-78=527 B.C.
The Gupta Era
Dr. Vasudeva Upadhyaya, M.A., Ph. D. discussing about the Gupta era, writes in his famous historical work on Gupta period, 2 “On the basis of the account given by some Jain writers of centuries prior to Alberuni, it is found that there is an interval of 241 years between the Saka and Gupta eras. One of these writers, Jinasena, who flourished in the 8th century A.D., states that 605 years and 5 months after Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa, the Saka king flourished and 231 years after the Šaka, Gupta's reign began, during which was born the Kalakirājā. Another Jain auther Gunabhadra writes in his work Uttara purāņal (889 A.D.), that 1000 years after Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa, the Kalakirāja was born. The statements of Jinasena and Gunabhadra are seconded by a third writer, Nemicandra.
“Nemicandra writes in his work Trilokasāras, "Sakarājā was born 605 years and five months after Mahāvīra’s Nirvana
1. An Advanced History of India, p. 120; Gupta Sāmråjya kā Itihasa,
Part I, pp. 182-183. 2. Ibid, part 1, p. 382. 3. Guptānām ca satadvayam...... !
Ektrimśacca varśāņi kālavidbhirudāhytam...... !! Dvicatvārimsadevātah Kalkirājasya rājatā......! Tato (a) jitamjayo rājā syadindrapura-saristhitaḥ...... !! Varśāņi şațsatiā tyaktvā pancāgram māsapancakam...... ! Muktim gate Mahāvire sakarājā tato(a)bhavan. ..... !!
-- Jinasena Harivamsa Purana, Adhyâya LX, VSS. 547-49. 4. Indian Antiquary, Vol. XV, 143, 5. Pana chasayi assam panamāsa judam gamiya virani vuido
Sagarājā to Kalkicadukakatiya mahiya Sasamāsa. Trilokasāra, p. 32.

Page #108

88
Mahāvīra and Buddha
and Kalakirājā was born, 394 years 7 months, after the Saka era'. Thus, 605 years 5 months+394 years 7 months,
= 1000 years. In this way on the basis of these three Jain writers, the time of Sakarājā as well as that of Kalakirājā are ascertained. “In this way, after ascertaining the times of Saka and Kalaki on the basis of some Jain works, Dr. Vasudeva Upadhyaya has proceeded further to find out the interval between the Saka era, and the Gupta era on the basis of Khoha inscription of king Hastina. In conclusion of the whole discussion, he writes! : "On the basis of the above discussion, it can be said that adding the number 241 to a date in Saka era, we get the corresponding date in Gupta era. Also, the statement of Alberuni is substantiated by this extensive discussion. It can be definitely concluded that the Gupta era began 241 years after Saka era (i.e. in 319 A.D.).”
The above quotation shows how the date of Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa has become the base of the chronology upto the beginning of Gupta era. Dr. Upadhyaya, as shown above, has reached at the date of the Gupta era by starting from the date of Mahāvīra's Nirvāņa. Now, if we employ just the reverse process we reach back to the date of Mahāvīra's Nirvāna as 527 B.C. For,
The beginning of Gupta era-319 A.D.
Interval between Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa and the beginning of era-846 years. :. Date of Mahāvīra's Nirvāņa-527 B.C. Astrological Calculations
The learned Ācāryas of Terapantha have also accepted 527 B.C. as the date of Mahāvīra's Nirvāņa. They have supported their belief by the astrological calculations.
1. Op. cit. 181.

Page #109

Research and Conclusion
According to the Jain scriptures, at the time of Mahavira's death, an asterism of ashes (Bhasma-graha) entered into the sign of Zodiac under which Mahavira was born (the birthrāśi) and it continued to stay for 2000 years.1 According to the fourth Acārya of Terapantha, Śrimad Jayācārya, that asterism left the sign of Zodiac of Mahāvīra's birth in the year 1531 of Vikrama era". Again, the scriptures have predicted that a comet (Dhumaketu) of duration of 333 years, will set in, 1990 years after Mahavira's death3. According to Srimad Jayacharya, the comet left the sign of Zodiac of Mahavira's birth in the year 1853 of Vikrama era. On the basis of the above to astrological evidences, we reach 527 B.C. as the date of Mahāvīra's Nirvāņa as follows:
Total duration of asterism of ash--2000 years. Date of its leaving the birth-rāśi——1473 A.D. Date of Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa--527 B.C.
Similarly, 1990+333 years after Mahavira's death, the comet left the birth-räsi, so that
Total duration of comet--2323 years.
Date of its leaving the birth-rāśi--1796 A.D. Date of Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa---527 B.C.
maggie d
Traditional Era of Vira Nirvāṇa.
The era of Mahavira's Nirvana, which is in vogue at present in the Jain traditions, is also based on the date 527 B.C. It is remarkable that this era is unanimously and uncontrovertibly accepted by all the sects of Jains. At
1. Kalpa Sutra, vs. 129 (S.B.E. Vol. XXII).
2. Bhrama Vidhavamsanam, Preface.
3.
4.
Bańkaculia.
Op. cit.
89

Page #110

90
Mahāvīra and Buddha
present, in the year 1963 A. D., the era of Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa is 2490, which is 527 years ahead of Christian era, as it should be.
Chronology of Mahāvīra’s Life.
After having decided the date of Mahāvīra's Nirvāna, now we can easily chronologize the important events of Mahāvīra’s life as follows: B.C.
Event 599
Birth 569
Initiation into ascetic life. 557
Attainment of omniscence. 527
Final emancipation. Traditional dates of Nirvāņa
It is not so easy to discover a unique date for Buddha's Nirvāṇa as in the case of Mahāvīra. More than a millenium ago, there existed ambiguity about it and even today it persists to a great extent. Famous Chinese traveller Fa-Hien, who visited India in 400 A.D., remarks!. “Up to now, 1497 years have passed since the Nirvāņa of the Blessed One (Buddha).” Another well-known Chinese traveller HiuenTsang who toured in India in 630 A.D., wrote”. “Lord Buddha lived for 80 years. There is a great controversy over the date of his Nirvāṇa. Some believe that Buddha attained the Nirvāṇa on the full-moon day of Vaišākha, while the Sarvāstivādins take the full-moon day of the month Kārtika as the day of Nirvāņa. Some people say that 1200 years have passed since the Nirvāṇa, while others contend that 1500 years have passed, and some other believe that 900
1. Bhāratīya Prācīna Lipimātā, by Rayabahādura Mahāmahopadhyāya
Gourishankar Hirāchand Ojha. 2. Ibid.

Page #111

Research and Conclusion
On
and a few more years have passed since the Nirvāṇa.” the basis of these beliefs, the dates of Buddha's Nirvāṇa come out to be 570 B.C., 870 B.C. and a few years earlier than 270 B.C. respectively. But all these dates have no more value than the legends.
At present, there are several dates prevalent on the basis of different Buddhist traditions. One of these is based on the Ceylonese chronicle, Mahāvamsa1. According to this, the Nirvāna of Buddha took place in 544 B.C. (This is popularly known as 'Ceylonese date'). Another date is based on the "dotted record of canton.2" Sanghabhadra brought this news to China. The people of Canton established a "Dotted record", the starting dot of which synchoronised with the year of Buddha's Nirvana. Then, every year a dot was added to it. This tradition continued up to 489 A.D. When all the dots were counted, they were found to be 975, on this basis, the date of Buddha's Nirvana was calculated to be 486 B.C.
91
There is a third date, prevailing in Chinese Turkestan. This is also known as 'Khotan tradition." "It place, Dharma-Aśoka 250 years after the Nirvana of Buddha, and makes him contemporary with Chinese emperor Shih HuangTi (Chin), the builder of the great wall, who came to throne. in 246 B.C., became universal emperor in 221 B.C. and reigned up to 210 B.C." On the basis of this tradition, some scholars affirm that Buddha died in 246+250-496 B.C.*.
1. Early History of India, by Vincent A. Smith, p. 49
2. Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, Great Britain, 1905, 51.
3. Sarat Chandra Das, Journal of Asiatic Society, Bengal, part, I,
1886, pp. 193-203, Tchang, Synchronismes Chinois; Early History of India by V.A. Smith, pp.49-50.
4. Buddhakaltina Bharata, by Janardana Bhatt, p. 371.

Page #112

$92
Historian's Date of Buddha's Nirvāņa
It is really suprising that in spite of the extensive research work, that has been carried into the problem of Buddha's date, the historians failed to reach an unanimous decision regarding it. Most of the scholars have put forth a new opinion, and thus, they have elongated the list of these dates. The dates, suggested by the prominent scholars are enlisted here:
Name of the scholars
Mahavira and Buddha
E. J. Thomas and a Japanese Scholar1 Rhys Davids
Max Müller and Jarl Charpentier1 Gen...Cunnigham5 and Diwan Bahadur
Swami Kanna Pilley
Oldenberg' Ferguson
(Date of Buddh's Nirvana in B.C.)
386
412
Dr. Buhler9
Dr. Wheeler, Geiger1o, Dr. Fleet11,

In between 483 & 471
483
1. B.C. La Commemoration Volume, II, pp. 18-22.
2. Buddhism, pp. 212-13.
3. Introduction to Dhammapadda, S.B.E.. Vol. p. X, XII.
4. Indian Antiquary, Vol. XLIII, 1914, pp. 126-133.
477
478
480
481
5. Corpus Inscriptionum. Indicarum, Vol. I, Introduction, p. II.
6. An Indian Ephamenish, part 1, 1922, pp. 471 ff.
7. Introduction to Vinaya Pitaka, S.B.E., Vol. XIII p. 22 and The Religions of India by E.W. Hopkins, p.310.
8. Journal of Royal Asiatic Society. IV, p.81.
9. Indian Antiquary, VI, p. 149, ff. (Also, see, Buddhism in Translation, p. 2).
10. Mahavaṁśa, Geigar's Translation, XXVIII and Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, 1909, pp. 1-134.
11. Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, 1908, pp. 471 ff.

Page #113

Research and Conclusion Tukaram Krişna laddu', Pt. Rhaul
Sankrityayana’, Dr. Jacobi Dr. H.C. Ray Chandhrit, Dr. Smith’s later view®. 487 Prof. Kern
488 Dr. Smith's Earlier View?, Dharmānanda Kaušāmbie
543 Pt. Bhagawan Lal Inderji'
638
It can easily be inferred, from the above list that out of the twenty two opinions quoted, ninteen hold that Buddha's Nirvāṇa took place later than 527 B.C. If 527 B.C. is accepted to be the correct date of Mahāvīra's Nirvāņa Buddha can be considered as a Junior contemporary of Mahāvīra in opinion of the above 19 scholars.
Though in course of time, new changes have entered in the opinion regarding the date of Buddha's Nirvāṇa, not a single view has been propounded so as to reconcile the events of Buddha's life connected with Mahāvīra, Gośālaka, Bimbisāra (Śreņika). Ajātaśatru (Konika), etc. This suggests that there has remained some fundamental mistake in our way of approach to the problem. It is nothing but the adoption of the chronology of Ceylonese chronicles as the basis.
1. Quoted from Vira Nirvāṇa Samvat Aura Jaina Kälagananā, p. 155. 2. Buddhacaryā, preface, p.I. 3. Op.cit, p. 11. 4. Political History of Ancient India, p. 227. 5. Early History of India p.46. 6. Der Buddhisumus, Jar--Telling, II, p. 63. 7. Early History of India, 1924, pp-49-50. 8. Bhagvāna Buddha, p. 89. 9. Indian Antiquary, XIII, 1884, pp-411ff.

Page #114

Mahăvira and Buddha
Problem of Chronology
There are mainly three sources, which throw light on the ancient chronology of India :
1. Purāņic, 2. Jain, 3. Buddhist
The first of these, viz. the Purāņic chronology is based on the Purāna such as Vişnu Purāņa, Matasya Purāņa, Vāyu Purāņa, Ehāgvat-Purāņa, etc. The second one i.e. the Jain chronology is found in the ancient works of Jain tradition such as, Titthogali Painnaya, Merutunga's Vicāra Śreņi, etc. The Buddist chronology is based on the Ceylonese chronicles Dipavaṁsa and Mahāvamśa.
The first of the above sources is the earliest of all. The Purāṇas cited above according to the historians, were compiled in the fourth century B.C.
Titthogali Painnaya, the work of the Jain tradition describing the chronology of ancient India, is believed to be composed in the 3rd or the 4th century A.D.
1. The Purāna certainly existed in any form in the fourth century
B.C., for we find in Kautilaya's Arthaśāstra, a reference to the Purāna.-- Janārdana Bhatt, Bhaudha Kālina Bhärata, p. 3.
In the opinion of scholars, the administrative system, described in Kautilya's Arthaśāstra is, in reality, an elaborated discussion of Candragupta Maurya's administration. So, the date of Arthaśāstra is, in no case, later than 3rd century B.C. Hence, it can be said that the Puranas were composed much earlier than the 3rd century B.C.
Shri Baladeva Upadhayaya, Ārya Samskști Ke Muladhāra, p. 164. 2. Muni Kalyan Vijayaji, op. cit—, p. 30n.

Page #115

Research and Codclusion
95
The Ceylonese chroinicles, date back, according to the scholars' to the 4th or 5th century of our era.
The Purāṇic and the Jain chronologies are wholly Indian, and endorse each other”. It is worth noting that the authority of the Purāņic chronology has been accepted by the historians. The Buddhist chronology is non-Indian, in as much as the Ceylonese chronicles were composed in Ceylon. Dr. Rhys Davids writes :4 "In the fourth century of our era, some one collected such of these pālī verses, as referred to the history of Ceylon, piecing them together by other verses to make a consecutive. He called his poem, thus constructed, the Dīpavainsa, the Island Chronicle...”
"As generation afterwards Mahānāma wrote his great work, the Mahāvamsa. He was no historian, and has, besides the material used by his two predecessors, only popular legends to work on.” This quotation of the renowned scholar clearly indicates of the unauthenticity of the Ceylonese chronicles. The greatest weakness of the Ceylonese chrono
1. Dr. Vincent A. Smith, Early History of India, p. 11. 2. Muni Kalyan Vijayaji has discussed this point at length in his
Vira Nirvana Samyat Aura Jaina Kalagananā, pp. 15-29. 3. Modern European writers have inclined to disparage unduly
the authority of the Purāņic lists, but closer study finds in them, much genuine and valuable historical tradition.
Dr. V. A. Smith, op. cit., p. 12.
The modern scholars have now accepted the view that the Purāņas give authentic account of ancient chronology. The facts described in them have been corporated by the edicts, the coins and the reminicences of the foreign travellers. The learned historians, therefore, state that these materials should be regarded as genuine and acceptable.
Shri Baladeva Upadhyaya, op. cit, p. 167. 4. Buddhist India, pp. 277-78.

Page #116

96
Mahāvīra and Buddha
logy is that it shows a great discrepancy with the Purāņic and the Jain chronologies. Reconstruction of chronology
We have already reached a definite conclusion about the following dates : Birth of Mahāvīra
599 B.C. Accession of Ajātaśatru
544 B.C. Death of Gośālaka
543 B.C. Nirvāṇa of Mahāvīra
527 B.C. Accession of Candragupta (at Magadha) 322 B.C. Accession of Candragupta (at Avanti) 313 B.C.
Now, we should try to reconstruct the whole chronology from the king Siśunāga, the founder of the Sri Sunga dynasty to the end of Nandas rule. As we have seen, the Jain sources assign 60 years to the rule of Pālaka dynasty and 155 years to that of Nanda dynasty over the kingdom of Avanti, after the death of Mahāvīra in 527 B.C. Thus in Avanti, the Palaka dynasty rule from 527 B.C. to 467 B.C., and the Nanda dynasty ruled from 467 B.C. to 312 B.C.
Now regarding the chronology of Magadha, we find that after the Nirvāṇa of Mahāvīra, the Sjśunaga dynasty
1.
It is to be noted that the Buddhist tradition runs counter to the Brahmaņical and Jain traditions.
Candragupta Maurya and His Time by Dr. Radha Kumud Mukherjee, p. 20. Muni Kalyan Vijayaji (op. cit. pp. 25-29) and Dr. Tribhuvandas Laherchand Shah (Prācīna Bhārata Varsa) have on the basis of a comparative study of the Jain, Puriņic and Buddhist traditions, computed the regnal period of the kings of Sisunāga and Nanda dynasties. We refer our readers to these sources for the detailed discussion of the topic.

Page #117

Research and Conclusion
97
continued to rule for 54 or 53 years,' after which the Nanda's rule began in Magadh.
In terms of chronology, rule of the Siśunāga-dynasty ended and that of Nanda-dynasty began in Magadha in 474-3 B.C. Again, according to the Purānas, the ten kings of Siśunāga-dynasty reigned Magadha for 333years.
1. According to Dr. T.L. Shah (op. cit.), after the death of
Mahāvīra, Ajātaśatru reigned for 30 years, Udāyi for 16 years and Aniruddha-Munda for 8 years, thus, assigning Mahāvīra's death in 527 B.C., the rule of Siśunāga dynasty at Mahāvīra's death in 473 B.C.
Accordinng to Muni Kalyan Vijayaji (op. cit. p. 28), Ajātaśatru and Udāyi reigned for 37 and 33 years respectively. But Mahāvīra's death took place 17 years after the accession of Ajātaśatru. Thus, 53 years after the death of Mahāvīra, ended the rule of Sisunāga dynasty, so that 474 B.C. is the starting
point of Nanda's rule at Magadha. 2. Nanda's rule at Magadha started in 474-3 B. C. and at Avanti, it
started in 467 B. C. It is a wellknown historical fact that at that time, there was a keen struggle between the kingdoms of Magadha and Avanti. It is quite probable that 6 or 7 years after having established his reign at Magadha, the first Nanda king would have conquered the kingdom of Ayanti. It is unanimously accepted by the historians that the Nandas had established 'Ek rat j.e. One umbrella kingdom in India (See, Political History of Ancient India by Dr. H.C. Raychaudhuri, p. 234, Age of Nandas
and Mauryas by Nilkantha Shastri, pp. 11-20). 3. According to T.L. Shah (op. cit.) 'Siśunāga was the founder of
the Si sunāga dynasty (cf. Väyu Purāņa, ad II C, VS 314). After the death of Asavasena, the king of Kāśī and the father of 23rd Tirtharkara of Jain Lord Pārsvanäthä, Sisunāga established his kingdom in Kāśi. Then Siśunāga himself went to Magadha and enthroned his son Kakavrana in Kāśi' (cf. Matsya Purāna, ad CCLXXI, V-5). 'Siśunāga was followed by Käkavarna KşemVardhana and Kșemajita. The fifth king of the Siśunāga dynasty was Prasenjita (The name of Prasenjita is omitted in the Purāņas,
(Contd. on next page)

Page #118

98
Mahāvīra and Buddha Hence, the beginning of siśunāga dynasty dates back to 807 B.C.
Thus, the rule of the ten kings of Siśunāga-dynasty in Magadha lasted from 807 B.C. to 474 B.C. by accepting the regnal period given in the previous foot-note, the accession of Bimbīsāra falls in 582 B.C.2 As we have already seen
36 50
» ,
but according to the Jain tradition the famous king Bimbīsāra was the son of Prasenjita. Also, the Buddhist work Divyāvadāna (p. 369) enlist Prasenjita in the successors of Siśunăga and Kākavarna, cf. Raychaudhuri, op. cit., p. 222.) 'It was Prasenjita, who transferred his capital from Kuthalnagar to Girivrija, Prasenjita was succeeded by Bimbīsāra, Ajtāaśatru, Udãyi Anuruddha and Munda.' (The Purāṇas enumerate Nandivaradhana and Mahānanda as the successors of Udayi, while the Buddhist chronology enlist Anuruddha-- Munda. It will be shown below, Nandivaradhana and Mahānandi were Nanda kings, and not Siśunägas). "The regnal period of each of these ten kings is as follows: 1. Siśunāga
60 Years 2. Kākavarna 3. Kşemvaradhana 4. Kşenajita 5. Prasenjita 6. to 10. Bimbisāra to Munda
108 Though the Purānas ascribe slightly different regnal-periods to these kings, the above regnal-period assigned by T.L. Shah seems
to be more correct. 1. It may be remarked here that though the purāņas state that the 10
kings of the Siśunāga-dynasty reigned for 362 years, the total of the regnal period assigned by them to these kings come out to be 333 years, (Cf. vāyu purāna, a ic, vss. 315-321, Prācīna by Mahamabopadyaya Vishaveshar Nath Reu, Vol. II, p. 54). Siśunāga
807 B.C.
747 B.C. Kākavarna
747 B.C.
711 B.C. Ksemavardhana
711 B.C.
661 B.C. Kşemajita
661 B.C.
625 B.C. Prasenjita
625 B.C.
582 B.C.
36 43
» )

Page #119

99
Research and Conclusion Ajātaśatru's reign began 17 years before the death of Mahāvīra (527B. C.) and ended 30 years after it. Thus, Ajātaśatru reigned from 544 B.C. to 497 B.C. Then, Udāyi' reigned for 16 years i.e. from 497 B.C. to 481 B.C. The Siśunāga dynasty ended with the 8 years rule of Ajātasatru and Munda in 473 B.C. As stated before the Siśunāga dynasty was succeeded by the Nanda dynasty. The first Nanda, probably called as Nandivardhana, acceded to the throne of Magadha in 473 B.C.
1. The Purāņus insert Darsaka in between Ajātasatru and Udayi. Also
the famous Sanskrit play Syapanavāsavadattā speaks of Darśaka as the King of Rājagļha. But it seems that Darśaka was really a king of viceregal throne at Rājagsha and not that of the regal throne of Magadha at Campā or Påtaliputra. (cf. Muni Kalyan Vijayaji) (op. cit. pp. 22-23) some scholars have considered it probable that Darsaka might be one of the many sons or grand sons of the King Bimbīsāra (cf. Dr. Sita Nath Pradhan, Chronology of Ancient India, p. 217. “The order of succession in the Vişņu Purāņa, which inserts Darśaka between Ajātaśatru and Udayaśva must be rejected. Also cf. ibid, p. 212- Darshaka may be one of Bimbīsāra's many sons who managed the state affairs during the life time of his father, Also, cf Raychaudhuri, op cit. p. 130; Geiger, Mahāvamśa, parichhedo IV, VV 1-2). Hence, in the chronological list of the main Siśunāga-dynasty, we need not count Darsaka. According to the Buddhist chronology Aniruddha-Munda were succeeded by Magadasaka (Mahāvassa parichhedo IV, vs. 4) and Siśunāga (ibid, parichhedo IV, vs). Nāgadaśaka and Susunāga are ascribed 24 and 18 years respectively as their regnal periods. (Ibid. 1.c. cit). On the other hand, the Purānas assign Darśaka and Nandivardhana a period of 24 and 42 or 40 years respectively, Väyu Puräna, II c. vs. 320 Matsya Purāņa, ad. CCLXXI, Vs-10). Now, it seems that Darśaka of the Purāna and Nāgadaśaka of the Ceylonese chronicles are one and the same person. (cf. E. J. Rapson, Cambridge History of India, p. 279; Dr. Radha Kumud Mukherjee, Hindu Sabhyată, p. 265). This Darśaka or Nāga-daśaka,
(Contd. on next page)
2

Page #120

Mahāvīra and Buddha
This Nandivardhana conquered the kingdom of Avanti and established the Nanda's rule there in 467 B.C., thus ending the rule of the Palak dynasty or "Pradyotas."1
100
after having ruled for 24 years at Rajagṛha (Viceregal throne), acceeded to the regal throne of Magadha at Pataliputra. Because he belonged to the Sisunaga dynasty, he can be called as "Śiśunaga". He it seems then assigned a new name "Nandi Vardhana" and found as a new dynasty--the Nanda-dynasty after his new name. He must have reigned for 16 or 18 years, for the Buddhistchronology assign this period to Suśunaga. Also, the Purānas have ascribed 40 or 42 years out of which 24 were spent at Rajagṛha as "Darśaka" and the remaining 16 or 18 years must have spent as "Nandivardhana". It should also be remarked here, that Udayi and Aniruddha Munda reigned for 24 years at regal-throne of Magadha and at the same time, Darśaka reigned at Räjagṛha for the same period. Thus the Puranas count 24 years of Darśaka twice which is an error, while the Buddhist-chronology counts it only once which is correct.
1. According to the Puranas (Vayu Purāṇa, a Ic, vs. 309-314, Matsya Purāṇa, ad CCLXXI, vvs, 1-4), Pulaka (or Sunaka) killed his master Ripunjaga, the last king of the Bṛhadratha-dynasty, and enthroned his son Pradyota. Thus, when the rule of Vitihotras and Bṛhadrathas ended in Avanti, the rule of the kings called Pradyotas commenced. The following five kings are called pradyotas:
1. Pravdyota (Mahāsena or Candpradyota)
2. Pälaka (Son of Pradyota)
3. Visakhyupa
4. Ajaka or Gopalaka
5. Avantivardhana (Or Vartivardhana).
As we have already seen, according to the Jain tradition, Palaka acceeded to the throne of Avanti on the very day on which Mahavira died, and his dynasty reigned for 60 years. Now, the Puranas assign 20 years to Palaka's reign (cf. Pargiter, Dynasties of the Kali age, p. 19, note 26. In some Purāņas, 24 years are assigned; but the scholars have relied on the above version. cf. Dr. Shanti Lal Shah, Chronological Problems, p. 26). The third Pradya (Contd. on next page)

Page #121

Research and Conclusion
101 After conquering Avanti, it seems that Nandivardhan attacked Kalinga and brought a Jain-statue to Magadha. On the basis of the Hathigumphā inscription of Khāravela, this event should have been taken place in 466 B.C. Thus,
king Visakupa is assigned a period of 53 (or 85) years. But the scholars, on the basis of other literary works like Mrcchakatika, have proved that Ajaka or Gopalaka succeeded Palaka and therefore Viśākpyupa should be omitted from the Palaka dynasty, (Cf. Dr. Shanti Lal Shah Chronological Problems, p. 27, "What about Yisākhyupa who occurs in the Purānas in between Pālaka and Aryaka? According to the family-history of Pradyota which we have seen just now, there is no place for Viśākhyupa in between Pālaka and Ajaka as reported; "also cf. Majumda Shastri Journal of Bihar and Orissa Research Society; vol VII., p. 116. "Višākhayupa has been introduced between Pālaka and Ajaka, but as that name does not occur, in all Mss, we ought to take no notice of him.", also, cf. Dr. Ramashanker Tripathi, Prācin Bhārata kā Itihasa, p. 72. “The Purānas insert a third name-Visakhayupa in between Pālaka and Ajaka, which is probably a mistake." Ajaka is assigned a regnal period of 21 years, after which his son Avantivardhana or Vartivardhana reigned for 20 years. Thus the three kings Pālaka, Ajaka and Avantivardhana ruled for 61 years. Then, the rule of Pradyotas ended. Thus both the Jain and Purāņic chronology agree that the Palaka-dynasty reigned for 60 or 61 years. (cf. Dr. Shanti Lal Shah, chronological problems, pp. 25-27). A Nanda king is twice mentioned in the Häthigumphā inscription of king Khāravela of Kalinga (orissa) (cf E. J.) Rapson, Cambridge History of India, Vol I, p. 280). The sixth line of the inscription is: “Pañcame cedări vase nandarāja-ti vasa-sata ogāhitam tarilsuliya-vātābandi (mn) nagararii pavesayati)......", (which means, “And now in the fifth year (of his reign), he (Khāravela) brings in to capital Tosala or Tamsuliya (or entered a particular town through or executed some public work associated with) the canal excavated by the king Nanda 300 years before". Though the word 'tivasa -- Sata" has been translated as "in 103rd years (of Nanda king) by some scholars, the conscientious scholars like Dr. K. P. Jayaswal, Dr. R. D. Banerjee, etc. have (Contd. on next page)

Page #122

102
Mahāvīra and Buddha after having established the rule of the Nanda-dynasty
translated it as "300 years" (cf. Journal of Bihar and Orissa Research Society, Dec. 1917, pp. 425 ff) Dr. Shanti Lal Shah has made the following remark: “That ti-vasa-sata means" 300 years and not 103, is certain. See Dr. Banerjee's artical in J. B. O, R. S. Vol. III, p. 496 ff. 9 May add here that because the years are expressed in compound the word 'Sata' is used in the singular instead of the plural." (Op cit. p. 41 n.)
Thus, the above Nanda king flourished 300 years bebore the fifth year of Khāra vela's reign Dr. Jayaswal has also shown that this Nanda king was no other than Nandivardhana cf. op. cit. Vol. XIII op. 240).
Again, the sixteenth line of the inscription shows that the thirteenth year of Khāravela's reign synchronized with 165th year of Maurya Era. The inscription reads: "Panamtariya sathivasasata Räjä Muriyakala, rocăināṁ ca coyatiaga śataka turiyam Upadayati", which means, "He (Khāravela) caused to be made (the things described in the foregoing lines) in the 165th year of the Rājā Muriya Era (of which) 164th year has just terminated Vocinām)". Here. also, though some scholars translate the above line in a different way and deny the existence of any date in the above inscription, others have critically refuted their view (cf Dr. Shanti Lal Shah, op. cit., pp. 47, 48), The famous historian E. J Rapson has made the followingre mark : "Even the fundamental question whether the inscription is dated or not is still in dispute. Some scholars contend that a passage in the sixteenth line can only be interpreted to mean that the inscription was engraved in the 165th year of the Maurya kings, or of the Maurya king), while others deny the existence of any such date. The discussion of problems of this kind does not fall within the scope of the present work ; but it may be pointed out here that the acceptance of the supposed date would seem to involve no chronological impossibilities, and that, in any case, the inscription probably belongs to about the middle of the second century B. C. We know from analogous instances that the origin of imperial eras is usually to be traced to the regnal years of the founder of the empire. A Maurya era, therefore, would naturally date from the accession of
(Contd. on next page)

Page #123

Research and Conclusion
103
Candragupta C. 321 B. C.; and, if such an era is actually used in the present instance, the inscription must be dated c. 156 B. C. and the beginning of Khāravela's reign c. 169 B C. With this hypothetical chronology other indications of date seem to agree.
Epigraphical consideration shows that the Hāthigumphā inscription of Khäravela and the Nānāghāta inscription of Nāganikā, the queen of Satakarni, belong to the same period as the Nāsika inscription of Krşņa. (Buhler, Archaeological Survey of Western India, V, p. 71 ; Indishe Palaeographie, p. 39). Even, therefore, if it must be admitted that the Hāthigumphă inscription is undated, there is still reason to believe that Khāravela may have been contemporary with Satakarni in the first half of the second century BC. Moreover, a Satakarņi is actually mentioned in the Häthigumphā inscription is Khāravela's rival ; and it appears most probable that he is to be identified with the Satakarņi of the Nānāghāta inscription. (Op. cit. pp, 481, 482)
Thus, by taking 322 B.C., the date of Candragupta's accession, as the year of beginning of Maurya Era, Khāravela's accession should fall in 170 B.C., and the fifth year of his reign in 166 B. C. Consequently, Nanda-răjä's (i. e. Nandivardhana's) attack on Kalinga must have taken place in 466 B.C. This Nanda-king is again mentioned in the 12th line of the inscription, which means, "In the twelfth year of his reign, Khāravela produced consternation among the king of Uttarāpatha, created fear in the people of Magadha, made his elephants to enter into 'Sugāna geya,' humbled Brihaspatimitra, the king of Magadha and brought back to Kalinga the Jain statue which had been carried away by the Nanda-king, and also gained some Jewels from Anga and Magadha as an evidence of victory” (Cf. Journal of Bihar and Orissa Research Society, Vol. IV, p. 401, Vol. XIII, p. 732). This line also confirms the date of Khāravela, decided above. For, ‘Brihaspatimitra' mentioned in the inscription is identified with Pusy mitra, the Sunāga-king, who flourished in 185-150 B.C. according to the Purāņic chronology, and the 12th year of Khāravela's reign falls in 159 B C. which synchronises with the reign of Puşyamitra. (Cf. Chiman Lal Jee Chand Shah, M. A. Jainism in North India, (Gujarati Translation), pp. 159-162 ; Dr. V. A. Smith,
(Contd. on next page)

Page #124

104
Mahāvīra and Buddha
within 16 or 18 years, Nandivardhana, the first Nanda king died in 456 B.C.1.
It may be remarked here that this date (474-456 B. C.) of Nandivardhana, the first Nanda king, is also corroborated by the date of famous grammarian Pāṇini, who is proved to be his contemporary and to have lived in 480-410 B. C.?.
Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, 1918, p. 554 ; Dr. K. P. Jayaswal, op. cit. Vol. III, p. 447, Dr. Shanti Lal Shah, op. cit, pp. 53-55).
Our view that this Nandarājā was no other than Nandivardhana, is supported by some famous historians. Dr. V. A. Smith observes, “The Nanda-Rājā reffered to appears to be Nandivardhana, the ninth Siśunāga king of the Purānas. It seems to be necessary to treat him and his successor Mahānandin, No. 10 as Nandas distinct from the nine Nandas who come between No. 10 and Candragupta. In the third edition of Early History of India (1914) I placed the accession of Nandivardhana about 418 B. C. He must now go back to c. 470 B. C. or possibly to an earlier date." ( Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, 1918, p. 547). E. J. Rapson, the editor of Cambridge History of India (Vol. 1.), concludes: "If tivasa-sata in line 6 of the inscription can mean 'three centuries before (the fifth year of Khāravela's reign), we must suppose that in the middle of the fifth century B. C., Kalinga was under the rule of a Nanda king, and it is natural to associate him with the wellknown predecessors of the Mauryas." --op. cit. p. 484). This date is also approved by the fact that according to Alberuni, the Nanda era commenced 400 years before the Vikrama-era (56 B. C.) (Cf. Dr. K. P. Jayaswal, op. cit, vol. XIII, p. 240, also, cf. Ganga Prasad Maheta. Prācīna Bharata. p. 103). It is quite probable that to mark the death of the founder of Nanda-dynasty, the Nanda-era was started in 456 B. C. The ancient Brahmanical as well as Buddhist traditions show Pāṇini to be contemporary with a Nanda king. It is mentioned by Tarānāth, the famous Tibetan writer, that Pänini was a friend of the Nanda-king, Mahānandin, the father of Mahāpadma Nanda.
1.
2.
(Contd. on next page)

Page #125

Research and Conclusion
105.
Nandivardhana was succeeded by his son Mahānandina, whose regnal period according to the Puräņas is 83 years?.
Thus, in 413 B.C., Mahāpadma Nanda acceeded to the throne of Magadha. He is said to have established “Ek rat” Kingdom in India?. He is assigned a regnal period of 88 years by the Purānas,and hence, his rule must have
(History of Buddhism, p. 1608). The Buddhist work MañjušriMülakalpa records.
Tasyārantro rājā Nandanāmā bhaviysati ! Puspåkhye nagre Sriman mahasa inyo mahābalaka. Bhavisyati tadā kāle brāhamanāstārkikā bhuvi !! Tebhi parivārito rājā vai ! asyapyanatamah sakhyah Pāņinirnāma manavah !!
Pasal III, pp. 611.12; Studies on Masījuśri–Mulakal by Jayaswal p. 14.
This means "There will be a Nanda-rājā in Puşpapura (Pāțli Putra) and a Brāhman called Pānini will be his intimate friend. In the court of the king, there will be many Brāhmaṇas who will be logicians and the king will honour them by gifts."
Besides these evidences, Somadeva's Kathåsaritsägara and Kşemendra's Brhatkathāmañgiri bear testimony to the contemporaneity of Pāṇini with the Nanda--rājā the records of the Chinese traveller Hieun-Tsang also support this view. (Cf. Dr. Vasudeva Saran Aggrawal, Pāninikālina Bhāratavarşa, pp. 467-480). Dr. Vasudeva Saran Aggrawal has shown on the basis of literary, historical and traditional evidences that the correct date of Pāņini is about 480-410 B.C. Dr. Aggrawal has also endorsed the view of Jain chronology that the Nanda-dynasty ruled in C473-323 B. C. (op. cit, p. 473). Dr. Aggrawal has also accepted that in 465 B.C. Nandivardhana, the first Nanda king was reigning at Päțaliputra op.cit. p. 474). Dr. Aggrawal has also cited an allusion from the grammar of Pāņini, which records that Nandivardhana was the first Nanda king and that Mahānandin his son was the second
Nanda-king. (Loc. cit.) 1. Väyu Purāna, adh, ICV 320 ; Matsya Purana adh CCLXXI, vs. II.. 2. Vayne Purana, adh, Ic, V. 327 3. lbid, loc. cit.

Page #126

106
Mahāvīra and Buddha
ended in 325 B.C." The remaining Nandas are assigned totally 12 years as their regnal period, and hence, the Nanda dynasty should have ended in 313 B.C.2.
Thus, we have reconstructed a complete chronology of the kings from the foundation of Siśunāga-dynasty to that of Maurya-dynasty. We give it here in a tabular form: Event
Date (B.C.) Foundation of Siśunāga-dynasty.
807 Accession of Siśunāga Kākavarana
747 Kșemavardhana
711 Kșemajita
661 Prasenjita
625 Bimbīsāra
582 Ajātaśatru Udāyi (in Pāțliputra) 497 Darsaka or Nagadasaka in
Rājagļha , Aniruddha-Munda 481
544
497
1. It is remarkable that Dr. Smith, who has established his chro
nology on different basis, has also ascribed the period of 88 years from 413 B.C. to 325 B.C. to Mahāpadma Nanda. Candragupta Maurya acceeded to the throne of Magadha in 322 B.C., but the Nandas continued to reign at Avanti, upto 313 B.C. As already discussed before, Candragupta Maurya acquired the kingdom of Avanti in 313 B.C., and this ended the rule of the Nanda-dynasty.
Some historiaus have called the first two Nanda-Nandivardhana and Mahānandi as old Nandas and Mahāpadama Nanda and his dynasty as Neo-Nanda (Nanira-Nanda) or new Nandas. (Cf. Dr. Shanti Lal Shah, Chronological Problems, pp. 34–37; also Cf.E. J. Rapson Cambridge History of India, pp. 279-280; Dr. K. P, Jayaswal, Journal of Bihar and Orissa Research Society, Sept, 1915, p. 21).

Page #127

107
Research and Conclusion Foundation of Nanda-dynasty
474 Accession of Nandivardhana (in Pāțliputra)
(in Avanti)
467 , , Mahānandi
456 Mahāpadama Nanda
413 , eight sons of Mahāpadma 325 Foundation of Maurya-dynasty (in Magadha) 322 Accession of Candragupta Maurya (in Magadha)
Candragupta, Maurya (In Avanti) 3131
519
503
00
1. Cf. the following chronologies supplied by the Mahavāṁśa, Dr.
Smith and Dr. Shanti Lal Shah respectively : (©) Mahāvaṁśa, Pariccheda IV, V.
(Taking Buddha's Nirvāṇa in 544 B.C., the eighth year of Ajātasatru's reign; the dates refer to the accession of the kings mentioned)
Regnal Period
B.C. Ajātasatru
551 Udāyibhadda Aniruddha-Munda Nāgadasaka
495 Sisunāga
471 Kālāśoka Kālāśoka's sons Nava Nandas
403 Candragupta
381 Dr. Smith : (Early History of India) Bimbi-āra Ajātsatru Darsaka
527 Udāyi
503 Nandivardhana
480 Madānandin
456 Mahāpadma Nanda
413 Song of Mahapadma Nanda
325 Candragupta
313 (Contd, on next page)
453 425
to
10
582 551
OWO

Page #128

108
Mahāvīra and Buddha
Inconsistencies in Ceylonese Chronology
Some inconsistencies in the chronology described by the Ceylonese chronicles are so obvious that it surprises us how they were accepted as the authoritative sources by the historians. For instance, the Purāņic and the Jain chronologies assign 100 and 150 years respectively to the Nanda dynasty, whereas the Mahāvamsa ascribes only 22 years to the whole dynasty, and more surprisingly, we find that no place is given to this important dynasty of India in the chronological list supplied by the Dipavamśa. Another inconsistency of the Ceylonese chronology is that whereas in the Purāṇas the king Siśunāga Kākavarna, etc. are enumerated as the predecessors of Ajātaśatru, the Ceylonese
551 519 501
Dr. Shanti Lal Shah (Chronological Problems) Ajātašatru Darsaka Udayina The Old Nandas
Nandivardhana Kākavarna add Mahănandina The New Nandas Nanda (Barber) Nanda II (Mahāpadma) Candragupta
467
447
404 382 316
1. Refer to Muni Kalyan Vijayji, op. cit. p. 24, for a detailed
discussion of the topic Prof. Lassen had observed long ago. "In den Berichten die Nandas herrschtin den Singhalesischen Schriften offenbareine Verwirrung." (Indian Antiquary, Vol. II, p. 61) "The account about the Nandas recorded by the Singhalese chronicles reveal a confusion". Dr. Smith (op. cit.) and Dr. Radha Kumud Mukherjee (Hindu Sabhyată, p. 267) have explicitly refuted this belief of Ceylonese chronicles.

Page #129

Research and Conclusion
109
works enlist them as the successors of Ajātaśatru.1 This can be said to be an untolerable blunder from the historical point of view. Besides such inconsistencies, the chronological beliefs of the Mahāvaṁśa such as "Buddha's death in the 8th
1. The greatest blunder committed by the historians in believing the Ceylonese chronology which states Śiśunāga as the successor of Ajātagatru, is probably due to the misinterpretation of the following verse of the Purāņ.
Aṣṭātrimśacchatam bhāvyā pradyotahpañcate sutāḥ ! Hatva teṣāṁ yasth rtsanamsisunako bhaviṣyati !!
The meaning of this verse becomes clear in the light of the foregoing discussion. To make it more clear, we should know that in Purānas, the name of the king of the dynasties of Kali age are mentioned in the following order:
(2) The king of Pandava-dynasty from Abhimanyu, who fought in the Mahābhārata war, to Kṣemaka, the fourth king to reign after Udayan, the contemporary of Buddha. This dynasty first reigned at Hastinapura and later on removed the seat of its rule to Kauśambi, during the reign of Nicaksus, the successor of Adhisimakrişna.
(ii) The king of Ikṣavāku-dynasty from Brhadvalo, who fought in the Mahabharata war, to Sumitra, the fourth king to reign after Prasenjita, the contemporary of Buddha. This dynasty reigned at Śrävasti in Kosala.
(iii) The king of Lunar dynasty of Pandava and successors of Brhadratha from Sahadeva, who fought in the Mahabharata war to Ripuñjya, the predecessor of Canda Pradyota (Mahasena), the contemporary of Buddha. The successors of Bahadratha (i.e. Barhadrathas) are also called Magadhās probably because they belonged to the dynasty of Bṛhadratha, Jarasandha, etc. who were the rulers of Magadha, and also Somādhi, the son of Sahadeva established his reign at Girivraja in Magadha after the Mahabharata war. But, after giving the chronology of the twenty-two kings, the Purāņas say:
Purna varṣasahasram vai teṣām rajyam bhavisyati!

(Contd. on next page)

Page #130

110
Mahāvīra and Buddha
Brhadrathesvatiteșu vītihotreşvavantisu! Pulakas svāminarı hatvă svaputrmabhișekşyati !! (Vāyu Purāņa, adh. Ic, VV, 309-310; Matsya Purāna adh. CCLXX V. 30; ad. CCLXXI, V.1) These verses explicitly indicate that when the rule of the kings: Viihotrās and Brhadrathās was over in Avanti, Ripuñjaya the last king was killed by his minister Pulaka (or Puņika or Sunaka) and his son Pradyota was enthroned. (We have already discussed Prālyota's rule in Avanti.) Thus, though the rule of the Bärhadrathās was established in Magadha in the time of Somādhi, later on it must have been transferred to Avanti. (iv) The kings of Prādyota dynasty from Pradyota to Avanti
vardhana. This dynasty reigned in Avanti. (v) The king of śiśumāga-dynāsty from Śisunāga to Mahānandi. This dynasty reigned in Magadha.
Those dynasticlists clearly show that the dynasties mentioned are not in succeeding order but are more or less contemporary. Udayan of the first dynasty, Presenjita of the second dynasty, Pradyota of the fourth dynasty and Ajātasatru (and Bimbisāra) of the fifth dynasty are undoubted by contemporary kings of Vatsa, Košala, Avanti and Magadha respectively. (cf. Rapson, C.H.I.p. 277) Thus, it would be a mistake if we take the fifth as the successor of the fourth dynasty, although the fourth dynasty is explicitly mentioned to have succeeded the third dynasty. Also, because the Bärhadrathās transferred their seat from Magadha to Avanti, tho Sisunāgas are justified as the rulers of Magadha and the conteinporaries of the later Bārhadrathảs of Avanti. The only question which remains still to be answered is that during whose reign the Bārhadrathās changed their seat from Magaddha to Avanti. It is possible that when Sisunāga became powerful in northern India and when he established his kingdom in Magadha (in c. 807 B.C.) the Bärhabrathäs king ruling at that time in Magadha would have escaped to Avanti and established his kingdom there. Then onwards, the Siśunāgas ruled in
(Contd. on next page)

Page #131

Research and Conclusion
Magadha and the Barhadrat has in Avanti contemporarily. The Bārhahrathas were succeeded by the Pradyot as, who, as already shown, were succeeded by Saiśunaga Nandivardhana, the first Nanda king.
The above interpretation of the Puranic verses is also compatible with the chronology described therein, According to the Purāṇas, the twenty two kings of the Farhadratha-dynasty ruled for 1000 years as follows.
Name of the King
(1) Somādhi
(2) Śrutaśrvā
(3) Ayutayusa
(4) Niramitra
(5) Suksketra (6) Brhatkarma
(7) Senajita (8) Śrutañjaya (9) Mabābahu (10) Śuci
(11) Kṣema
(12) Bhūvrata
(13) Dharmanetra
(14) Vivṛti
(15) Suvrata
(16) Drḍhasena
(17) Mahinetra
(18) Sucala
(19) Sunetra
(20) Satyajita
(21) Viśvajit (22) Ripuñjaya

Regnal period
58 Years
60
36
40
56
Total
23
50
40
28
64
28
64
35
58
38
48
33
32
40
*
83
35
50
99

33
د.
12
27
33
33
دو
22
21
*******
..
"
111
29
999 years
Thus 1000 years for 22 kings are exactly computed. Also by taking airthmetical average of these regnal periods. we find that each king is alloted 45.45 years. This means "that the last six kings ruled for
(Contd. on next page)
33

Page #132

112
Mahāvīra and Buddha
year of Ajātšatru's reign", "Aśoka's coronation (anointment)
45.45 X 6 =) 273 years, which is also the exact total of the last six rulers. Now, we know from other sources that Pradyota acceeded to the throne of Avanti (by ending the rule of Ripuñjaya) in 549 B.C. (see "Tibetan Tradition' in chapter VIII of this book). This means that Ripuñjaya's rule ended in 549 B.C. By calculating the dates of the last six kings and by comparing them with those of the first six kings of the Siśunāga dynasty, we find that their contemporaneity is surprisingly proved :
Bārhadatha king
Date (B.C.)
Saišunāga king | Date (B.C.)
599-549
Bimlīsāra
582-544
(1) Ripuñjaya (2) Viśvajita (3) Satyajita
634—599
Prasenjita
625--552
717-634
Ksemajita
661-625
(4) Sunetra
757–717
Kșomavardhana
(5) Sucala
789_757
Kākavarna
711—661 747—711 807—747
(6) Mahinetra
823—789
śiśunāga
Ajatsatru the 7th king of the Siśunāga dynasty and Prodyota, the 7th king in the line of Avanti-rulers also become contemporary as follows:
Ajātasatru : 544.497 ; Pradyota 549-527. Thus, the whole chronology becomes complete.
It may be indicated here, that the date of Mahābbārat is also fixed to a great certainty in c. 1559 B.C. This is also confirmed by another chronological fact of the Purānas and the Mahābhārata that the Nanda's rule commenced 1050 years after the Mabābhārat war, which is thus, dated in 474+1050=1524 B.C. (Cf. Vāyu Purana adh. To v.v, 217-329 ; Matsya Purāņa, adh. CCLXX v.v. 30 adh. CCLXXI, v.v. 1-20 adh. CCLXXII. v. 35 Mahābhārata XIV-66--70, also ef. Buddha Parva kā Bhāratiya Itihāsa, by Missra & Missra, pp. 30-171 Pargiter, The Dynasties of Kali age, pp. 20 ff. 65 ff. ; Dr. Sita Nath Pradhāna, chronology of ancient India pp. 100-230.
1. Cf. Editor's Note, p.-XII.

Page #133

Research and Conclusion
113 218 years after Buddha's Nirvāņa” contradict not only Tripațakas and more genuine literary works, but also run counter to the fundamental historical facts.
Dr. Vinsent Smith had long ago warned the historians against the over-estimation of the value of the Ceylonese
(4) Cf, T.W. Rhy Davids, Introduction to the Mahāparinirvana Sutta S.B.E. vol. XI, p. XLV : "According to the Rāja-paramparà or line of kings, in the Ceylon chronicles, the date of great decease would be 543 B.C., which is arrived at by adding to the date 161 B.C. (from which the reliable portion of the history begins), two periods of 146 and 236 years. The first purports to give the time which elapsed between 161 B.C. and the great Buddhist church council held under Asoka, and in the eighteenth year of his reign at Patna ; and the second to give the interval between that council and the Buddha's death.
"It would result from the first calculation that the date of Asoka's coronation would be 325 B.C. (146+161+18). But we know that this must contain a blunder or blunders, as the date of Asoka's coronation can be fixed, as above stated with absolute certainty within a year or two either way of 267 B.C.
Would it then be sound criticism to accept the other, earlier period of 236 years found in those chronicles a period which we cannot test by Greek chronology-and, by simply adding the Ceylon calculation of 230 years to the European date for the 18th years of Asoka (i.e. circa 249 B.C.) to conclude that the Buddha died in or about 485 B.C. ?
"I cannot think so. The further we go back, the greater does the probability of error become, not less. The most superficial examination of this earlier period shows that they are unreliable and what reliance would it be wise to place upon the total, apart from the details, when we find it mentioned for the first time in a work Dipavamsa, written eight centuries after the date it proposed to fix ?
If further proof were needed, we have it in the fact that the Dipavamsa actually contains the details of another calculation-based on the lists of kings (Rājaparamparä), but on a list of Theras (Theraparam para) stretching back from Aśoka's time to the time of great Teacher-which contradicts this calculation of 236 years".

Page #134

114
Mahāvīra and Buddha
chronicles." Dr. H.C. Raychaudhuri has also maintained that these Ceylonese legends cannot be made basis of the historical conceptions.” Dr. Shanti Lal Shah has already found out the reason of the discrepancy which is found in the Ceylonese chronicles, and which he terms as a deliberated perversion. He writes :4 "The peculiarity of the Buddhist tradition (The Ceylonese tradition) is that it confines itself firstly to the history of the Hīnayāna Buddhism and secondly to the history of its development in Ceylon, since Buddhism although originating in India, had found its development in Ceylon. Because of this territorial limitation, which has been a great factor for the preservation of the history of Ceylon, the account of this tradition about Ceylon is much more prefect than that about India. One who is acquainted with the scheme and content of the Dipavamsa and Mahāvaṁsa will hardly fail to notice that the account of the North Indian kings in these two books is only occasional and of minor importance. This conclusion is absolutely borne out by the typical construction of the Dipavamsa and Mahāvaņģa.5"
1. Early History of India, p. 11 2. Political History of Ancient India, p. 6. 3. Chronological Problems, p. 41. 4, Op. cit., p. 19. 5. The content of Mahāramśa are as follows:
1. The visit of the Tathāgata. 2. The race of Mahāsammata. 3. The first council. 4. The second council. 5. The third council. 6. The coming of Vijaya. 7. The consecration of Vijaya. 8. The consecration of Pandu Vasudeva. 9. The consecration of Abhaya,
See Giger Tr, of Dr. Mahāvamśasa, p. VIII.

Page #135

Research and Conclusion
115
In spite of all these inconsistencies, in the most of the approaches made up to now to fix the date of Buddha's Nirvāņa, the Ceylonese chronology has been accepted as the main basis. This seems to be the main reason responsible for the discrepancy created between the chronology of Buddha and the genuine life-events of Buddha.
The Chronology of Buddha
In such a condition, when the chronology of Buddha itself is dubious and uncertain, in order to compute the period of contemporaneity of Mahāvīra and Buddha, their life-events depicted in the Āgamas and the Tripitakas, serve as the most authentic means. Out of the six contemporary rivals of Buddha, Mahāvīra was the most prominent one. The Tripițakas bear testimony to their intimate relations, either bad or good. Hence, a complete consistency in their life-events will reveal their period of contemporaneity, and consequently, the chronology of Buddha.
According to the Jain canon Bhagvati Sūtra, Makkhali Gośālaka, the leader of the Ājivakas, died 16 years before the Nirvāņa of Mahāvīra. Also, as we have already proved, Bimbīsāra's (Sreņika's) death and Ajātšatru's accession took place 17 years before the Nirvāņa of Mahāvīra. On the basis of the foregoing discussion, it has also become clear that Ajātaśatru fought the Mahā. Šilākanțaka war and the Raihamūsala war with the Vajjis of Vaiśālī, in the first year of his reign.
The following four facts are quite obvious in the light of the foregoing discussion of the life-events of Mahāvīra and Buddha, as dipicted in Āgamas and the Tripitakas.
1. See, 'Inconsistencies' in Chapter III of this book.

Page #136

1:16
Mahāvīra and Buddha
1. Mahāvīra was elder than Buddha, the former having lived for 72 years, while the latter for 80.
2. Mahāvira's omniscience is antecedent to Buddha's enlightment, Mahāvīra attained omniscience at the age of 42, while Buddha attained enlightenment at the age of 35..
3. When Gośālaka died, Mahāvīra was 56 years old.
4. Buddha's enlightenment had taken place before the death of Gośälaka', i.e. Mahāvīra. Buddha as well as Gośālaka were alive at the time of Mahā-Šilā-Kanțaka war.
On the basis of the above facts, the following conclusion can easily be deduced - When Mahāvīra was 56 years old, Buddha must be at least 35. So the maximam possible seniority of Mahāvīra could be 21 years, and because Mahāvīra died at 72 and Buddha at 80, the maximum possible interval between their Nirvāṇas could be 29 years.
1. The Tripitakas tell us that the six religious teachers-Purana
Kassapa, Makkhali Gośālaka, Niganth Nâtaputta, Ajita Keśakambalī, Sañjya Vellathiputta and Pakuddha Kāccāyana had already announced themselves as "Tirtharkaras' and had started preaching their religions before the enlightenment of Buddha. Also, when Buddha attained the enlightenment, all of them were alive. Makkhali Gaśälaka was the founder of the Ājivaka sect. When, just after having attained the onlightenment, Buddha was travelling from Gayā to Sāranātha in the way he met an Ajivaka monk called U paka. Buddha said to him, "I have attained enlightenment." But Upaka, being not convinced of this, paid no heed to him, Having said, "May be, perhaps, Upaka went away by another road. Vinaya Pitaka, Māhāvagga, 1, also see Buddhacaryā by Rahul Sankrityayapa. p. 21 and Bhagvāna Buddha by Dharmapanda Kaušāmbī, p. 137. This incident makes it clear that at the time of Buddha's enlightenment, Makkhali Gośālaka had already become an eminent religious leader.

Page #137

Research and Conclusion
Again, as stated above, Mahāvīra attained omniscience 14 years before Gośalaka's death. Consequently, on the basis of fact No. 2, Buddha could not have attained the enlightenment prior to this. At the most, he could have attained it in the same year. If we suppose so, Buddha would be 35 and Mahāvīra 42 at that time. Therefore, the minimum possible seniority of Mahavira could be 7 years and the minimum possible interval between their Nirvāṇa could be 15 years.
11.7
Thus Mahavira's seniority to Buddha lies between 21 and 7 years, and the interval between their Nirväņas lies betbeen 29 and 15 years.
We get another way to reach a more definite period within the possible range stated above. The Atthakatha of Anguttara Nikaya supplies us a complete chronological list of the places where Buddha passed his rainy seasons after his enlightenment. According to the above work, in Rajagṛha, Buddha spend his 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 17th and 20th rainy seasons after the enlightenment.2 Now according to the Sammññуaphala Sutta of Digha Nikaya, the event of Ajātaśatru's only call upon Buddha, during which the king Ajātaśatru asked Buddha a question about the fruitfulness of monkhood and repented for murdering his father, took place during
1. Anguttara Nikāya, Atthakathā, 2-4-5.
2. According to Rhys Devids, Buddha passed his 4th rainy-season in Mahāvana (Vaiśālī): (Buddhism by Rhys Davids quoted by M.N. Shastri in Buddha: His Life, His Teaching, His Order p. 120). But the Attakatha states that the 5th rainy season was spent at Vaiśālī in the same way Aṭṭakatha states that Buddha passed his 6th rainy-season at Mankula Parvata." While Rhys Davids has stated that he passed the 5th rainy-season, at Mankula Pravata. It seems, that in the calculation of Rhys Davids, there is an error of 1 year.

Page #138

118
Mahāvīra and Buddha
one of the rainy seasons passed by Buddha at Rajāgṛha.1 Again, this event should have happened in the first year of Ajataśatru's reign, in as much as soon after his accession, he had transfered his capital to Campã, on account of the great sorrow he felt over his father's death. Now, if we suppose that the above event recorded by the Sammāññуa-` phaia Sutta had taken place in the 17th or 20th rainy-season after Buddha's enlightenment, the fact No. 2 (stated above) is violated. For, as shown before,2 Ajataśatru's accession took place in the 13th year after Mahavira's attainment of omniscience. So the possibility of the above event taking place in 17th or 20th rainy-season is ruled out. Consequently the event should have taken place either in the 2nd or 3rd or the 4th rainy-season after Buddha's enlightenment.
Thus it was the 13th year after Mahāvīra's omniscience and the 2nd, the 3rd, or the 4th year after Buddha's enlightenment. This means that Mahavira was, at that time 55 years old, and Buddha either 36, 37 or 38. In other words Mahavira was 19, 18 or 17 years older than Buddha, and attained the Nirvāņa 27, 26, or 25 years earlier than Buddha.
Further to reach at a definite conclusion out of these three alternatives, we fortunately get a small way out-If we suppose that the event of Sämmaññya-phala Sutta, had taken place in the 2nd or 3rd rainy season after Buddha's enlightenment, it would mean that Ajatasatru's accession and Bimbisara's death took place only one or two years after Buddha's enlightenment, that is to say, the contemporaneity of Bimbisara with enlightened Buddha was of one or two years. But a closer study of the Buddhist Tripitakas reveal
1. This Sutta has been quoted in Seniority of Mahavira, in this Chapter.
2. See, 'Inconsistencies' in Chapter III of this book.

Page #139

Research and Conclusion
119 that it should be slightly wider than this. Therefore, it will be consistent to take the 4th rainy-season after enlightenment to be the year of Ajātaśatru's accession. This will allow a period of three years which is enough long, for the contemporaneity of Bimbīsāra with enlightened Buddha. Thus by taking the last alternative, we reach the final conclusion that :
1. Mahāvīra was 17 years older than Buddha.
2. Mahāvīra attained the Nirvāņa 25 years earlier than Buddha.
3. The total contemporaneity of their life was 55 years, the contemporaneity of their life as religious leaders was 20 years.
It should be borne in mind that the above conclusion is based only upon the life-events of Mahāvīra and Buddha. Even if we suppose them to have lived in any period of history, this conclusion will hold good. In order to accomplish our discussion, it is essential to think over it from the chronological point of view.
It has already been made clear that the chronology of Buddha is in itself quite uncertain. Also, it has been shown that the chronology of Mahāvīra in itself is almost unanimous and certain. Hence, on the basis of the unequivocal date of Mahāvīra, the above conclusion can be put in chronological terms. The date of Mahāvīra's Nirväņa is 527 B.C. Therefore, that of Buddha's Nirvāṇa should be 502 B.C. Now as we have found out the date of Nirvāṇa, we can easily compute the dates of the important events of his life as follows:
1. Dr. Radha Kumud Mukherjee has rightly remarked, “Chrono
logy is essential to biography. An individual cannot rank as a historical person, unless his life and work are placed in time". Candragupta Maurya and His Times, p. 2,

Page #140

120
Mahāvīra and Buddha
Date
Event of Buddha's life
582 B.C. 554 B.C. 547 B.C. 502 B.C.
Birth Renunciation Enlightenment Nirvāņa
The comparative chronological table of the important events of their life is as follows:
Mahāvīra
Buddha
Birth
599 B.C. 569 B.C. 557 B.C.
582 B.C. 554 B.C. 547 B.C.
Renunciation Enlightenment (Omniscence) Niryāņa
527 B.C.
502 B.C.
Thus Mahāvīra and Buddha lived comtemporarily from 582 B.C. to 527 B.C. i.e. for 55 years. As religious leaders, their contemporaneity lasted from 547 B.C. to 527 B.C. for 20 years.
It should also be noted here that Buddha had attained Nirvåņa in 42nd year of Ajātaśatru's reign; and that Candragupta Maurya and Aśoka acceded to the throne of Magadha 180 and 229 years after Buddha's Nirvana respectively.

Page #141

CHAPTER VIII
CORROBORATION OF THE CONCLUSION
We have reached the above conclusion regarding the date of Buddha's Nirrāņa solely on the basis of historical and mathematical methods. Hence it can be regarded as a ‘self evident' fact. But, because it is being disclosed in. the field of history for the first time, it will not be unnecessary to corroborate it by some other evidences. We get some historical and traditional evidences which directly corroborate the above conclusion. They are as follows :
1. Tibetan Tradition :
According to the Buddhist tradition of Tibet, the day on which Buddha was born, was also the birthday of the king Caņda Pradyota (also known as Mahāsena) of Avanti. The same tradition also records that Buddha's. enlightenment and Pradyota's accession took place on the same day.
The king Pradyota is mentioned in all the three traditions-Buddhist, Jain and Purānic. According to the Purāṇas. such as Vāyu Purāņa", Matsya Purāņa, 4 Bhagvat Purāņa, etc.. and the famous literary works like Kathāsaritsāgara, Svap
1. Life of Buddha by Rockhill, p. 17. 2. Ibid. p. 32. 3. Vāyu Purāna, Adhyaya IC V. 312. 4. Matsya Purāna. Adhye ya CCLXXI V. 3. 5. Bhägvat Purāņa Skandha, XII Adhyāya V. 3. 6. Kathäsaritsägara 3/5/58.

Page #142

122
Mahāvīra and Buddha
anavāsvadattä,1 Mrcchakațikaetc. and the Jain works like Āvaśyaka—Niryukti-Dipikā,3 Pradyota was succeeded by his son Pālaka. Now, as we have already seen the king Pālaka acceded to the throne of Avanti in the same night on which Mahāvīra passed away. Thus, it becomes clear that the king Pradyota was born on the day of Buddha's birth, he acceded to throne on the day of Buddha's enlightenment, and lastly, his reign ended on the day of Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa. The purāņic chronology unequivocally ascribe 23 years to Pradyota's rule.
“Trayovimşat samārājā bhavitā sa narottamaḥ's that is “He (Pradyota) ruled for 23 years."
Thus, when Buddha attained the enlightenment at the age of 35, Pradyota became the king, and when Mahāvīra attained the Nirvana at the age of 72, Pradyota's rule ended. Therefore, at the time of Pradyota's accession, Mahāvīra must be 72-23=49 years old, and Buddha was 35 years old. Hence, we conclude that Mahāvīra was 14 years older than Buddha. This conclusion nearly endorses our conclusion that Mahāvīra was 17 years older than Buddha.
2. The Traditional Date af Chinese Turkestan
Our conclusion is also quite consistent with the tradi
1. Svapanavāsavadattő of Bhāsa. 2. Mrcchakatika of Sudraka. 3. Āyaśyaka-Nirukti-Dipikā part II pp. 110-11, V. 1282.
Tithogālipainnya-quoted in 'The Date of Mahāvira's Nirvāņa
in Chapter VII of this book. 5. Väyu Purāna Adhyāya IC V. 311. 6. Pradyota's reign ended in 527 B.C. Hence, his accession should
have taken place in 527+23=550 B.C. Cf. foot note.

Page #143

Corroboration of the Conclusion
123
tional date of Buddha's Nirvāṇa, prevalent in Chinese Turkestan,' and also known as “Khotan Tradition.”
This tradition places the King Aśoka 250 years after the Nirvāṇa of Buddha by taking him as a contemporary of the Chinese emperor Shih-Huang-Ti. Some scholars, on the basis of the fact that Shih-Huang-Ti's accession took place in 245 B.C., have accepted (246+250=) 496 B.C. as the date of Buddha's Nirvāņa. It may be noted that there is only a nominal difference of 6 years between this date and our conclusion. But, it seems that the interval of 250 years between Buddha's Nirvāṇa and Aśoka should, in reality, be the one between Buddha's Nirvāṇa and the famous third Buddhist council, that had taken place in the 18th year after Aśoka's consecration, and according to historians, in 252 B.C. Hence, the date of Buddha's Nirvāṇa, on the basis of the above tradition should be 252+250=502 B.C. which exactly coincides with our conclusion. 3. Asoka's Edicts
The stone (rocks) and pillars inscribed by Aśoka the great Mauryan emperor, are, in fact the foundation-stones and foundation pillars of Indian history. Many a doubtful facts regarding history were made undoubtful on the basis of the above inscriptions. The present conclusion regarding the date of Buddha's Nirvāṇa is too corroborated by these edicts. The edicts are mainly divided in the following types :
5 Minor Rock Edicts 14 Rock Edicts 4 Minor pillar Edicts
1. See Traditional Dates of Buddha's Nirvana in Chapter VII of
this book. 2. See, for example Janardan Bhatt, Buddha Kālīna Bhārata, p. 213. 3. Dr. Ramashankar Tripathi. Pracina Bhārat kā Itihasa, p. 129.

Page #144

124
Mahāvīra and Buddha
7 Pillar Edicts 3 Cave Edicts
6 Miscellaneous Edicts.
The following is the text of the Minor Rock Edicts: No. 1, which is found at Rupanātha, Sahasarāma and Vairāța ;'
“Devānam piye evam āhā (:-) Sātilekāni adhatiyāni vaya sumi pākā savake no cu vādhi pakate; sātilake cu. chavachare ya sumi hakam samghe upete.
"Badhi cu pakate yi ! imāya kālāya jambudipamsi amisā devā husu te dāni misā Katā! Pakamayi hi esa phale ! Noca esā mahatatā pāpotave khudakena hi ka !
“Pi parūmaminena sakiye pipule pi svage ārodhave ! Etiya athāya ca sato kate Khudakā cha udhālā ca pakamuta ti! atā pi ca jānaṁtu iyam pakakha.
“Kiti (?) cirathati ke siyā Iya hi athe vadhi vadhisiti vipula ca vadhisiti ! Apalaghiyenā didhiya vadhisata (1) iya ca athe pavatisu lekhäpeta vālatahadha ca (1) athi.
“Silāțhame silāthambhasi läkhāpata vayata Etină ca vayajanenā yāvataka tupaka ahāee sayara vivasetavāyuti ! Vyuthenā sāvane kațe 256 Satavivāsāta !”
The following is the translation :
Thus saith His sarced Majesty : For more than two and a half years I was a lay disciple, without, however exerting myself strenously. But it is more than a year since I joined the Order, and have exerted myself strenously.
“During that time the Gods who were regarded as true all over India have been shown to be untrue.
1. Asok a ke Dharma Lekha, by Janardan Bhatt. 2. The edicts of Sahasarāma and Vairāta read "Upāsake".

Page #145

Corroboration of the Conclusion
125 "For this is the fruit of exertion. Nor is this to be attained by a great man only, because even by the small man who chooses to exert himself immence heavenly bliss may be won.”
“For this purpose has the precept been composed : ‘Let small and great exert themselves.'
"My neighbours too should learn this lesson: and may such exertion long endure.”
“And this purpose will grow, yea it will grow immensely at least one-and-a half-fold will it increase in growth.”
"And this purpose must be written on the rocks, both afar of and here; and wherever there is a stone-pillar, it must be written on stone-pillar.” And according to this text, so far as your jurisdiction extends, you must send it out everywhere.”
“By (me) was the precept composed, when 256 years had passed since the Nirvāņa of Buddha."
In the Minor rock Edict No. 2, which is found at Brahmagīri Sidhapur, and Jatinga-Rameshwar, we find the same thing repeated with a slight difference. Emperor Asoka writes there :1
"Suvaṁņagīri te ayaputasa mahāmāyama ca vacanena isilasi Mahămātā ārogiyam vataviyā hevaṁ ca vataviyā ! Devāņaṁ piye āņapayati !
“Adhikāni adhāti yāni vaya sumi ......diyadhiya vaļhisiti ! iyam ca sāvane sāvapate vyudhena 256.
The translation is by command of the Prince and high officials at Suvarañagiri, the high official at Isilā are to be addressed with greetings, and further addressed as follows:
1.
Asoka ke Dharmlekha, by Janardan Bhatt.

Page #146

126
Mahavira and Buddha
His sacred majesty gives this instruction: 'For more than two......And the precept quoted above was preached by? (me) in 256th (years) after Buddha's Nirvāṇa.'
There are mainly two things in the above edicts to be noted: The first is concerning Aśoka's joining order, which - is expressed by the words "Samghe upete;" the second one -the date inscribed in the end of the edicts viz. 256 years after Buddha's Nirvana, expressed by the words "Vyuthenā săvane kate 256 Satavivāsāta.”
The words "Samghe upete" used in the above Edicts have become a matter of controversy amongst the scholars and different scholars have tried to interpret them in different ways. Dr. Radha Kumud Mukherjee, discussing about this controversy, writes: "It is difficult to understand what Aśoka exactly intends by the expression on Samghe upete, which has been translated above to mean that he lived with, entered or visited the Samgha, and the opinion of the scholars is sharply divided on this point. Some scholars hold that Aśoka actually became a Buddhist monk (Bhikkhu). Others, however, take the expression simply to mean that Aśoka made a state-visit to the samgha and publicly proclaimed his faith as the Sinhalese chronicle informs us. The former view is, however, supported by the statement of I-tsing that he actually saw a statue of Aśoka dressed as a monk. A third possibility is that Aśoka lived with the samgha for more than a year, without taking orders.
"Among those who assume that Aśoka became a monk, there is again a difference of opinion. Some hold that
1. The Age of Imperial Unity, (The History and Culture of Indian People, Vol. II), pp. 75-76.

Page #147

Corroboration of the Conclusion
127
during the period Asoka was a monk, he must have ceased. to be a monarch, for monastic life is hardly compatible with royal duties. Others, however, point out actual examples of kings who were monks at the same time and find no reason for the assumption that Asoka, even temporarily abdicated the throne.
“Whatever may be the right interpretation of this association with the Sangha, there is no doubt that since this event, Aśoka exerted himself with unflagging zeal for the propagation of Buddhism, or at least that part of it which he accepted as his Dharma. He not only set up a net-work of missions to preach the doctrine both in and outside India, but himself undertook tours for this purpose and took various other steps to the same end.'
Dr. Mukherjee has not emphasised a particular view regarding the interpretation of the expression, Saṁghe upete. Nevertheless, it is easily understood, even by glancing at the different interpretations, that the event of Asoka's “Sanghe upete” is related with his historical religious tour or pilgrimage, which is explicitly mentioned even in Asoka's own edicts. In the Rummindei Pillar Edict, Asoka writes :: “Devān piyena piyadasin lājina visati vasābhisitena atana āgā ca mahīyite ! hiya budhe jāte sakya munīti silāvigaļa bhīvā kālāpita silāthame ca usa papi te hiya bhagavam jāte ti luminigāme uvalike kațe athabhāgiye ca?.”
It means, "His Sacred and Gracious Majesty the King, when he had been consecrated twenty years, having come in person, did reverence; and because “Here Buddha was
1. Asoka ke Dharamā-lekha, by Janradan Bhatt. 2. Asoka, by Vincent A. Smith, p. 199.

Page #148

128
Mahāvīra and Buddha
born, the Śākya sage," a great (?) railing of stone was prepared and a stone pillar erected.
Because "Here the Venerable one was born” the village of Lumini was made free of religious cesses and declared entitled to the eighth share (of the produce claimed by the crown).
In addition to this, the way in which the famous Buddhist work Aśokāvadāna describes the pilgrimage of Asoka, suggests that the expression “Samghe Upete” is quite competent with the pilgrimage of Asoka. 'The pilgrimage of Asoka' is described thus:1
“The King said “I desire to visit all the places where the venerable Buddha stayed, to do honour unto them, and to mark each with an enduring memorial for the instruction of the most remote posterity.' The Saint (Upagupta) approved of the project, and undertook to act as a guide. Escorted by a mighty army, the monarch visited the holy places in Order.
“The first place visited was the Lummini garden. Here Upagupta said: 'In this spot, great king, the Venerable one was born; and added: "Here is the first monument consecrated in honour of the Buddha, the sight of whom is excellent. Here, the moment after his birth, the reculse took seven steps upon the ground.'
“The king bestowed a hundred thousand gold pieces on the people of the place, and built a Stūpa. He, then passed on to Kapilvastu.
“The royal pilgrim next visited the Bodhi-tree at Bodhi Gayā, and there also gave a largesse of hundred thousand
1. Translated from Ašokāvadāna by Dr. Vincent A. Smith, in Asoka
(The Rulers of India), pp. 227-228.

Page #149

Corroboration of the Conclusion
:
129
gold-pieces, and built a Caitya. Rsipatana (Säranātha) near Benaras, where Gautama had turned the wheel of law and Kuśinārā, where the teacher had passed away, were also visited with similar observances. At Sarāvasti the pilgrims did reverence to the Jetavana monastery, where Goutama had so long dwelt and taught, and to the Stūpas of his disciples, Sāriputra, Maudgalāyana, and Mahākaśyapa. But when the king visited the Stūpa of Vakkula, he gave only one copper coin, in as much as Vakkula had met with few obstacles in the path of holiness and had done little good to his fellow creatures. At the Stupa of Ānanda the faithful attendant of Gautama, the royal gift amounted to six million gold pieces."
Many a scholars are of the view that Asoka had also become a Buddhist monk in his life-time may it be only for a short time. It seems most probable that the above pilgrimage was undertaken by Aśoka in the form of a Buddhist monk. But it does not mean that he ceased to be the king at that time.
Thus the purport of the expression “Samghe-Upete” also becomes meaningful. Asoka has stated in the above edicts that he became a lay-disciple 21 years before his stage of "Joining the Order” (Sarghe-Upete). Now, if Asoka "Joined the Order” 20 years after his consecration, as stated by him in the Rummindei pillar Edict, he must have become a lay disciple 173 years after his consecration. This is exactly the time of the ‘Third Buddhist Council'l. Though generally it is held that Asoka became a follower of Buddhism 9 years after his consecration, it seems that he considered himself initiated into "formal Upāsaka-dharama (rules of the laydisciple)" from the time of the Third Buddhist Council.
1. Cf. Asoka, by V.A. Smith, p. 211.

Page #150

130
3. Mahāvīra and Buddha
Thus, we can say that Asoka became a lay disciple 17} years after his consecration ; he joined the order” 20 years after his consecration; and he wrote the above inscriptions (Minor Rock Edict Nos. I & II), slightly more than 21 years after his consecration.
"The second thing, to be paid attention to, in the aforequoted edicts, is the last time of the inscription viz. "Vyuthenā sāvane kațe 256 satavivāsāta.” This line has also been interpreted differently by different scholars.
Etymologically, vyuthenă is the Apabhramśa of the Sanskrit word vyuştena and vivāsā that of vivāsāt. Vyuşta is formed by adding the termination kta to the root vitvas (forming the part participle), and Vivasa is formed by adding the termination ghan to the root viť vas. According to the distinguished scholars like Dr. Bühler, Dr. Fleet etc. vyuştena means 'one who has passed away' i.e. Buddha, and vivāsāt means 'the Nirvāņa (of Buddha').' Dr. Fleet also observes: “It is quite probable that king Asoka would have become a monk by abdicating the throne 255 years and 7 or 8 months after the Nirvana of Buddha and since then he would have “joined the Order.” When 8 months and 16 days were thus completed, on the 256th night, Asoka would have written these inscriptions (Minor Rock Edict Nos. I&II). But a question arises that why Aśoka specially mentioned 256th night in these inscriptions. The answer is 256th year from Buddha's Nirvāṇa had just completed on the 256th day or night of Asoka's tour, and to mark the 256th
1. Journal of Royal Asiatic Society. 1904, pp. 1-26, Dr. Bühler,
"Second notice, Indian Antiquary, 1893'. 2. Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, 1910, pp. 1301-8, 1911, pp.
1091-1112 (quoted from Janardan Bhatta, Aśoka ke Dharma lekha).

Page #151

Corroboration of the Conclusion
anniversary of Buddha's Nirvāṇa, Aśoka wrote these inscriptions. Thus it is proved that the number 256 mentioned in these inscriptions is indicative of the fact that Buddha's Nirvāṇa took place 256 years before Aśoka."
The above view of Dr. Fleet and Dr. Bühler is based on a critical study of the inscriptions of Asoka. But the modern historians, however, accept it only partly. According to them', it can only be said that the inscription was written on the 256th departure from staging-places or on the '256th day of the tour,' but to say that it was written to observe 256th anniversary of Buddha's Nirvana, does not seem to be correct.
The only reason behind this view of the modern historians seems to be that the period which is 256 years precedent to Buddha's Nirvāṇa, does not synchronize with the whole period of Aśoka (273-236 B.C.), on the basis of any prevalent date of Buddha's Nirvāņa2.
3
131
Hence, they say, "The number 256 in the earliest edict has no bearing upon chronology." But their argument is neither justifiable nor correct. Dr. Max Müllar, the profound Oriental Scholar, has criticized this trend of the historians, and supported the view of Dr. Bühler. He writes, "I fully admit the difficulties in the phraseology of
1. For the view of the modern history, see Vincent A. Smith, Asoka, p. 150; Dr. F.W. Thomas, Indian Antiquary, 1908, pp. 19-23, Dr. H.C. Raychaudhuri, op. cit., p. 341 n; Yadhunandana Kapur, Aśoka, p. 128, etc.
None of the dates of Buddha's Nirvana, which are in vogue, falls between (236+256=) 492 B.C. and (273+256-) 529 B.C. cf. Historians dates of Buddha's Nirvana in chapter VII of this book. 3. Dr. F.W. Thomas, Asoka in Cambridge Histary of India, Vol. I, p. 453.
2.
4. Dhamapadda, Sacred Books of the East, Vol. X, part I Introduction, p. XLI.

Page #152

132
Mahāvīra and Buddha
these incriptions; but I ask, “Who could have written these inscriptions, if not Asoka ? and, how if written by Aśoka, can the date which they contain mean anything but 256 years after Buddha's Nirvāṇa ? These points, however, have been argued in so masterly a manner by Dr. Bühler in his "Second Notice that I should be afraid of weakening his case by adding anything of my own, and must refer my readers to his ‘Second Notice',
Now, the remarkable and important thing regarding this matter is that the "number 256 years” of the above inscriptions becomes quite consistence, with the date 502 B.C., which we have proved in this book to be the date of Buddha's Nirvāņa. It has already been made clear that the above inscriptions were written by Aśoka a little more than a year since he joined the Order", and he "joined the Order” 20 years after his consecration. Here, we reach a definite point regarding the chronology which is unanimous and certain. It is the date of Aśoka's consecration 269 B.C. Thus, Aśoka's consecration
269 B.C. Asoka "joined the Order” in
248 B.C.1
1. Dr. Radha Kumud Mukherjee has observed that since Asoka's
association with the order, he exerted himself with unflagging zeal for the propagation of Buddhism, and it was Asoka's zeal for his new faith that led him to preach it in a foreign colony by sending up a net-work of missions. The Age of Imperial Unity, pp. 76 ; also, Asoka by Radha Kumud Mukherjee, p. 257. Accordingly and also because the historians accept 246 B.C. as the date of introduction of Buddhism into Ceylon by Mahendra (the son of Asoka) (cf. Dr. L.D. Barnatt, "The Early History of Ceylon in Cambridge History of India, Vol. I, p. 547). 248 B.C. our date of Asoka's "joining the Order" is proved to be correct.

Page #153

Corroboration of the Conclusion
The date of the minor Rock Edicts I & II Hence, by going 255 years back from 247 B.C. we, reach the date of Buddha's Nirvāṇa. 247+255-502 B.C.
4. Burmese Tradition
The most sound evidence among the traditional evidences is that of Burmese tradition. There prevails an era called "Eetzana era" in Burma.1 Eetzana is the Burmese term for Añjana, who was the Sakya king of Devaha which is the Burmese for Devadaha Country and who was also the maternal grandfather of Buddha.2 The chief events of Buddha's life have been chronicled in the Eetzana era and the tithis, (the lunar days), the week-days as well as the constellations with which the moon was in combination on these days, have also been recorded with reference to the different years of that era, which would seem to have been current at that ancient time.
(1) Birth of Buddha on Friday the full-moon day of the month Katson which is Burmese for the Indian lunar month Vaišākka, combined with the constellation Withaka, which is Burmese for the 16th lunar mansion Visakha in the 68th year of the Eetzana era.
133
247 B.C.
(2) Renunciation (Departure from the household life and initiation into ascetic life); On Monday the fullmoon day in the month of July i.e. Aṣadha (the Indian lunar month), combined with the constellation Ostharathana,
1. Life of Gautama by Bigandet, Vok FF, p. 13.
2. Ibid., p. 13.
3. Ibid., vol. II pp. 71-72,
4. Ibid., vol. I, pp. 62-63; vol. II, p. 72.

Page #154

134
Mahāvīra and Buddha
which is Burmese for the 21st lunar mansion Uttrāṣāờha in the 96th year of the Eetzana era.
(3) Enlightenment of Buddha. On Wednesday the full-moon day of Katson=Vaišākha, combined with the constellation Withaka=Vaišākha in the 103rd year of the Eetzana era.
(4) Parinirvāṇa of Buddha? : On Tuesday the full-moon day of Kat son=Vaišākha combined with the constellation Withaka=Vaišākha, in the 148th year of Eetzana era.
According to the Burmese tradition, the Eetzana era began on Sunday which was the 1st lunar day of the waxing moon of the month Tagoo i.e. Burmese for the Indian month Caitra. 3
.:. A research scholar Mr. M. Govind Pai has found out the corresponding English dates of the above Burmeset dates. According to his conversions the chronology date is as follows:
1. Birth of Buddha 30th March, 581 B. C. * 2. Renunciation of Buddha : 18th June, 553 B. C. 2.3. Enlightenment , , : 3rd April, 546 B, C. 4. Parinirvāṇa
, : 15th, 501 B. C. 5. Beginning of Eetzana era : 17th February 648 B. C.
Thus, it can be seen that the Burmese tradition is in perfect congruence with the chronological date of Buddha's life-events, which we have deduced in the last chapter. :
1. Ibid., vol. I, p. 97; Vol. II, pp. 72-73. 2. Ibid., vol. II, pp. 69. 3. Ibid., vol. I, p. 13. 4. Prabuddha Karnataka, a Kannada Quarterly published by the
Mysore University, vcl, XXVII (1945-46), No. 1, pp. 92-93 ; The date of the Nirvana of Lord Mahāvira in Sri Mahäviru Commemoration Volume, vol. I, 1941-49, pp. 93-94.

Page #155

Corroboration of the Conclusion
It is really a surprising coincidence that the Burmese tradition and our approach arrive exactly at the same fact, for the author of this book was not at all aware of the Burmese tradition till he reached the conclusion.
The author came to know about the Burmese tradition only after the whole book had already been published in the form of articles in the journals like Jaina Bhārati,1 Anekānta2 etc.
Well, the four evidences cited above have corroborated our conclusion in the same way as the fourway farers from different directions would confirm the reality of the pole by arriving at the same polar point.
1. 2.
Jaina Bharati, vol. XI, Nos, IV, VI to X. Anekanta (Bi-monthly), April-June, 1963.
135

Page #156

Page #157

APPENDICES

Page #158

Page #159

APPENDIX I
The Chronological list of Rainy-seasons passed by · Mahāvīra after his Attainment of Omniscence,1
Number
1
123456TGEREE
7
8
9
10
11
16
17
BR2223
18
19
20
21
Date (B.C.)
557
556
555
554
553

552
551
550
549
548
547
546
545
544
543
542
541
540
539
538
537
536
535
Place Rajagṛha Vaiśālī
Vāņijyagrāma
Rajagṛha Vāṇijyagrāma
Rājagṛha Rājagṛha
Vaiśälī
Vaiśăli
Rajagṛha
Vāņijyagrāma
Rājagṛha
Rajagṛha
Mithila
Mithila
Vāṇijyagrāma
Räjagṛha Vānijyagrāma
Vaiśālī
Vaiśālī
Rajagṛha
Nālandā
Vaiśāli
1. The order of the rainy seasons is based on the research work of Śri Vijayendrasuri, see op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 3-326.

Page #160

140
Mahāvira and Buddha
534 533 532 531
Vaiśāli Rājagsha Nālanda Mithilā Mithilā Rājagrha Pāvā
530
529
528

Page #161

APPENDIX II
546
544
539
The Chronological list of Rainy-seasons passed by Buddha
after his Enlightenment.1 Number Date (B.C.)
Place 547
Rşipatana
Rājagțha 545
Rājagļha
Rājagsha 543
Vajśālī 542
Mankulaparvata 541
Tryastrimsa 540
Sumsummāragīri
Kaušāmbi 538
Pärileyaka 11 537
Nālā 536
Vairañjā 535
Cāliyāparvata 534
Śrāvasti
Kapilvastu 532
Alavi
Rājagpha 530
Cāliyāparvata 529
Cāliyāparvata 528
Räjagsha 21-45 527-503
Srāvasti 502
Vaiśālī
533
531
20
46
1.
The order of the rainy-seasons is based on Ariguttara Nikāya Athakathä, 23/5.

Page #162

Page #163

BIBLIOGRAPHY,
Hindī, Sanskrit, Pāli and Prākļta Books. 1. Anguttara Nikāya (Attha Kathā). Tr. by Pt. Rāhula
Sāṁskstyāyana, Pub. by Mahābodhi Sabhā Benaras. 2. Antagadadaśānga Sūtra. Ed. by Amolaka Rși, Pub.
by Jaina Sastroddhāra, Mudraņālaya Sikandrabad
(Deccan). 3. Anuttarovavāi Sūtra, Ibid. 4. Asoka by D.R. Bhandarkar, Pub. by S. Chand & Co.,
Delhi, 1923. 5. Ahimsā Vāņi, Pub. by Akhila Viśva Jain Mission,
Alīganja (Eţā). 6. Annual Volume of Aja Kala, 'Baudha Dharma Ke 2500
Varşa’, Pub. by Publication Division, Delhi, 1960. 7. Ājivikas, by A.L. Bhasham. 8. Ārya Samskặti Ke Mūla Ādhāra by Ācārya Baladeva
Upādhyāya, Pub. by Sāradā Mandira, Benaras. 9. Upāsakadaśānga Sūtra, Ed. by Amolaka Rși, Pub. by
Jaina Šāstroddhāra, Mudraņālaya Sikandrabad (Deccan). 10. Uvavāī Sūtra, Ibid. 11. Kalpa Sūtra, Ibid. :12. Kathāsaritsāgara, Pub. by Bihāra Raștrabhāṣā Parişad,
Patanā. 13. Gupta Sāmrājya Kā Itihāsa by Vāsudeva Upādhyāya,
Pub. by Indian Press Limited, Allahabad. 14. Jaina Darśana Ke Maulika Tatva by Muni Śrī Nathamal
Ji, Pub. by Ādaría Sahitya Saṁgha, Curu, 1961.

Page #164

144
Mahāvira and Buddha
15. Jaina Bhārati, Pub. by Jaina Svetāmbara Terapanthi
Mahāsabhā, Calcutta-1. 16. Jaina Satya-prakāśa (magazine). 17. Jaina Sāhitya aura Itihāsa by Nathu Ram Premi, Pub.
by Hindi Grantha Ratnākara Kāryalaya, Bombay, 1942. 18. Thāṇāga Sūtra, E. by Amolaka Rși, Pub. by Jaina
Šāstroddhāra, Mudraņālaya Sikandrabad (Deccan). 19. Tatva Samuccaya by Dr. Hira Lal Jaina. 20. Tapāgaccha Pattāvali (Sțīka, Tr. by Panyāsa Kalayāņa
Vijaya Ji) and written by Dharmāsāgara Upādhyāya. 21. Titthogāli Painnaya. 22. Tiloyayannatti, Parts I and II by Yativịşabacārya, Ed.
by Dr. A.N. Upadhye and Dr. Hira Lal Jaina, Pub.
by Jaina Samskrti Samrakşaka Samgha, Solapur, 1943. 23. Trilokasāra, by Nemicandra Siddhānta Cakravarti,
Tr. by Țodaramalaji, Pub. by Hindi Jaina Sāhitya
Prasāraka Kāryālaya, Bombay, 1911. 24. Tīrathankara Mahābīra by Vijendra Sūri, Pub. by
Kāšīnātha Sarāpha Yaśodharma Mandira, Bombay,
1962. 25. Darśana aura Cintana, by Pt. Sukha Lal Ji. 26. Divyāvadāna. 27. Darśana Digadarśana by Pt. Rähula Sāmkrtyāyana,
Pub. by Mahābodhi Sabhā, Benaras, 1936. 28. Digha Nikāya (Hindi Translation), Ibid. 29. Dhavalā Țikā by Vīrasenācārya, Pub. by Jaina Sid
dhānta Bhavan, Ārā. 30. Nandi Sūtra, Ed. by Amolaka Rși, Pub. by Jaina
Šāstroddhāra Mudraņālaya, Sikandrabad (Deccan). 31. Niryāvaliyā Sūtra, Ibid.

Page #165

145
Bibliography 32. Pañcavastuka, Pub. by Setha Deva Chand Lal Bhai
Pustakoddhāra Fund, Surat. 33. Parisista-parvan (Sthavirãvalī Caritra) by Hemacandrā
cārya, Ed. by Dr. Hermann Jacobi, Pub. by Asiatic
Society, Calcutta, 1932. 34. Parisista-parvan (Sthavirāvali Caritra) by Hemacandrā. . cārya, Ed. by Haragovind Das Seth, Pub. by Jaina
Dharma Prasāraka Sabhā, Bhavanagar, 1912. 35. Pāṇinikālina Bhāratavarşa by Dr. Vasudeva Saran
Aggrawal. 36. Parśvanātha Kā Cāturyāma Dharma by Dharmānanda
Kaušāmbī, Pub. by Hindi Grantha Ratnākara Kāryālaya,
Bombay. 37. Prācīna Bhārata by Ganga Prasad Mehta. 38. Prācīna Bhārata by C. M. Srīniväsacāri Rämasyāmi
Iyangar, Allahabad, 1950. 39. Prācīna Bhārat Kā Itihāsa by Dr. Ramā Sankara
Tripathi, Pub. by Nanda Kishor & Bros., Banaras, 1956. 40. Prācīna Bhārata Varşa by Dr. Tribhuvandas Laher
chand Shah, Baroda. 41. Bankacūliā Painnā. 42. Bimbisāra by Suśīla, Pub. by Ananda Mudraņālaya,
Bhavanagar, 1932. 43. Buddha Aura Mahāvīra by Prof. Leumann, Tr. by
Tilakavijaya, Pub. by Brahmānand Sharma, Ludhiana,
1937. 44. Buddhacary, by Pt. Rahula Saṁkstyāyana, Pub. by
Siva Prasāda Gupta, Sevā Upavan, Kāśī, 1924. 45. Buddha Pūrva Bharata Ka Itihāsa by Dr. Syāma Bihari
Miśra, Sukarāja Bhihari Miśra, Hindi Sahitya Sammelana, Prayāga.

Page #166

Mahavira and Buddha
46. Bṛhatkathamañjarī by Kşemendra.
47. Baudha Kalina Bharata by Janardan Bhatta, Sahitya Ratnamālā Karyalaya, Kāśī, 1926.
48. Brahmaṇḍa Purana, Pub. by Nanda Lal Mora, 5 Clive Row, Calcutta.
49. Bhagavati Sūtra Ed. by Jaina Śāstroddhāra Mudraṇālaya, Sikandrabad (Deccan).
146
50. Bhagavana Buddha by Dharmananda Kausāmbi, Pub. by Raja Kamala Publication, Bombay, 1956.
51. Bhagavana Parsvanatha Ki Paramparā Kā Itihāsa (Two Parts) by Muni Śrī Jñana Sundaraji, Pub. by Ratnaprabhakara Jñana Puspamālā, 1943.
52. Bhagavana Mahāvīra Aura Mahātmā Buddha by Dr. Kāmatā Prasāda Jaina, Pub. by Mulacanda Kiśanadāsa Kavadiya, Surat, 1926.
53. Bhagavana Mahavira No Samyama Dharma by Gopaladās Patel, Pub. by Navajivana Kāryalaya, Allahabad. 54. Bhāgavata Purāṇa, Pub. by Gita Press, Gorakhapura. 55. Bhārata Kā Bṛhata Itihasa (4th Ed.) by Prof. Śrīnctra Pandeya.
56. Bharata ke Pracina Rajavamśa by Mahāmahopādhyaya Pt. Viśveśvara Nath Reu, Pub. by Nathu Rāma Premi, Hindi Grantha Ratnakara Karyalaya, Bombay, 1927.
57. Bharatiya Itihasa ki Bhumika by Dr. Rāja Bali Pandey, Pub. by Malhotra Bros, 60, Daryaganj, Delhi, 1949.
58. Bharatiya Prācīna Lipimālā by Raya Bahādura Gouri Sankara Ojha.

Page #167

Bibliography
147 59. Biksu-grantha Ratnākara, Ed. by Ācārya Śrī Tulsī, Pub.
by Jaina Svetāmbara Terāpanthi Mahāsabhā, Calcutta,
1960. 60. Bhrama-Vidhvamsanam by Śrīmajjayācārya, Pub. by
Osavāla Press, Calcutta, 1924. 61. Majjhima Nikāya (Hindi), Tr. by Pt. Rähula Sarkstyā.
yana, Pub. by Mahābodhi Sabhā, Benaras, 1933. 62. Matsya Purāņa, Pub. by Nanda Lal Mora, 5 Clive
Row, Calcutta. 63. Mahābhārata by Vyāsa, Tr. by Arun Kumar Pub.
by Astro-Medical Research Publications, Raichur,
Mysore State. 64. Mahavamsa (Hindi) Tr. by Bhadanta Ananda
Kausalyayana, Pub. by Hindi Sāhitya Sammelan,
Prayag. 65. Mahāvīracariyam by Nemicandra, Pub. by Ātmānanda
Sabhā, Bhavanagar, 1926. 66. Mrcchakațika by Sudraka Ed. by Godbole, B. A.,
Bombay Sanskrit Series, No. LII, 1896. 67. Vayu Purāna, Pub. by Nanda Lal Mora, 5 Clive Row,
Calcutta. 68. Vicāraśreņi by Merutungācārya, Pub. by Jaina Sāhitya
Samsodhana, Poona, Vol. II, Nos. III & IV, May,
1925. 69. Vinaya Pitaka (Hindi), Tr. by Rāhula Samkstyāyana,
Pub. by Mahābodhi Sabhā, Benaras, 1954. 70. Vira Nirvāņa Samyat Aura Jaina Kālagananā by Muni
Kalyāņa Vijaya Ji, Pub. by K.V. Šāstra Samiti, Jālora
(Māravāda), 1930. 71. Vividha Tīrthakalpa (Apāpābịhatakalpa), Pub. by
Singhi Jaina Series.

Page #168

148
Mahāvīra and Buddha 72. Vaiśāli by Vijayendra Suri, Pub. by Yasodharma
Mandir, Bombay. 73. Samyukta Nikāya (Hindi), Tr. by Jagadīsa Kāśyapa,
Bikșu Dharmarakṣita, Pub. by Mahābodhi Sabhā,
Banaras, 1954. 74. Sutta-nipāta (Hindi) Tr. by Pt. Rāhula Saṁkstyāyana,
Pub. by Mahābodhi Sabhā, Benaras. 75. Sūtrakstānga Sūtra, Ed. by Amolaka Rși, Pub. by Jaina
Sastroddhāra Mudraņālaya, Sikandrabad (Deccan). 76. Sūtrakstanga Sūtra, Tr. by Pt. Rāhula Saṁkstyāyana,
Mūlagama Prakāśana Samiti, Gudgava (Cantt.) Panjab,
1957. 77. Saubhagya Pañcamyādi Parva Kathā Samgraha. 78. Svapnavāsavadattā by Bhāsa, Ed. Ganpati Shastri,
Trivendrum, 1913. 79. Harivamśa Purāņa by Jinasenācārya, Pub. by Manakya
chandra Granihmālā, Bombay, 1929. 80. Hindu Sabhyatā by Dr. Radha Kumud Mukerji, Tr.
by Dr. Vasudeva Sarana Aggrawal, Pub. by Rāja
Kamala Prakāśana, Bombay, 1955. 81. Asoka by Yadu Nandan Kapoor, Agra, 1962. 82. Asoka ke Dharmalekha by Janardan Bhatta, Allaha
bad. 83. Asoka ke Dharmalekha by Janardana Bhatta, Publi
cation Division, Old Secretariat, Delhi, 1956. 84. Ašokāvadāna. 85. Āvaśyaka Kathāpaka. 86. Āvaśyaka Cūrņi (2 volumes), Ratlam, 1928. 87. Āvaśyaka Niryukti Dipikā (3 Parts), Surat.

Page #169

Bibliography
88. Uttara Pradeśa Mem Bauddha Dharma kā Vikāsa by Dr. Nalinaksha Datta, Uttara Pradeśa Prakasana Vibhaga, Lucknow, 1956.
89. Upadeśamāla.
90. Kathasaritsagara by Somadeva, Ed. by H. Brokhaus, Leipzig.
91. Triṣaṣṭiśalā kāpuruṣacaritra by Hemacandracārya.
92. Dipavaṁśa (Ceylonese Chronicle).
93. Dhammapada Atthakathā.
94. Dharma Aura Darśana by Dr. Baladeva Upadhyāya.
149
English and German Books
95. An Advanced History of India by R. C. Majumdar, H. C. Raychaudhuri, K. K. Datta, Pub. by Macmillan Co., London.
96. The Age of Imperial Unity (The History and Culture of Indian People, Vol. II), Pub. by Bharatiya Vidyā Bhavan, Bombay, 1960.
97. Ancient Coins and Measures of Ceylon by Rhys Davids.
98. Ancient India by E. J. Rapson, 1962.
99. Ancient Indian Historical Tradition, by Pargiter, Pub. by Motilal Banarsidas, Delhi, 1962.
100. Age of Nandas and Mauryas, Ed. by K. A. Nilkantha Shastri, Pub. by Motilal Banarasidass, Banaras, 1952. 101. Archaeological Survey of Western India by Bühler. 102. Aśoka by Vincent A. Smith, Ed. by Sir William Wilson Hunter, Second Edition, (Indian reprint), S. Chand & Co., Delhi, 1959.
103. The Book of Discipline, Vol. I to V, (Vinaya Piṭaka) Tr. by I. B. Horner, Luzac & Co., London.

Page #170

150
Mahāvīra and Buddha 104. The Book of Gradual Sayings Vols. I to V (Anguttara
Nikāya) Tr. by F. L. Woodward and E. M. Hare
Luzac & Co. London, 1932-36. 105. The Book of Kindred sayings, Vols. I to V (Samyukta
Nikāya) Tr. by C.A. F. Rhys Davids and F.L., Woodward, Pab. by Pali Text Society, Luzac & Co.,
London, 1917-30. 106. Buddha : His Life, His Teachings, His Order (Second
Edition) by Manmath Nath Shastri, Pub. by the Society for the Resuscitation of Indian Literature,
Calcutta, 1910. 107. Buddhism by T.W. Rhys Davids, London, 1877. 108. Buddhism in Translation by Henry Clarke Warren
(Harward Oriental Series, Ed. by Charles Rockwel Lenman, Vol. III), Pub. by Cambridge Mass.
Harwad University, 1933. 109. Buddhist India, by Rhys Davids, Pub. by T. Fisher
Unwin, London, 1903. 110. Buddhist Suttas, Tr. by T. W. Rhys Davids, Sacred
Books of the East, Vol. XI, Oxford. 111. The Cambridge History of India Ed.by E.J. Rapson,
Indian Reprint Pub. by S. Chand & Co., Delhi, 1955.
(Original, Cambridge University Press, 1921). 112. Chandragupta Maurya and His Times by Dr. Radha
Kumud Mukherjee, Pub. by Rajkamal Publications,
Bombay, 1952. 113. Chronological Problems by Dr. Shanti Lal Shah,
Pub. by the author, Bonn, Germany, 1934. Chronology of Ancient India by Dr. Sita Nath
Pradhan. 115. Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, Vol. iii, by J. F.
Fleet, Calcutta, 1888.
114.

Page #171

Bibliography
116. Der Buddhismus, by Prof. Kern, Pub. by O. Schulge,. Leipzig, 1883.
117. Dhammapada, Ed. by Max Müller, (Sacred Books of the East Series, Vol. X) Oxford, 1881.
151
118. The Dialogues of Buddha (Vols. I to III) (Digha Nikaya) Tr. by T.W. and C.A.F. Rhys Davids, Pali Text Society, Luzac & Co., London, 1899-1921.
119. The Dynasties of the Kali Age by Pargiter, Oxford Univeristy Press, 1913.
120. Dipavaṁśa Ed. & Tr. by H. Oldenberg, London, 1879 121. Early History of India, by Dr. Vincent A Smith, Oxford, 1924.
122. Epitome of Jainism, by Puran Chandra Nahar and Krishana Chandra Ghosh, Pub. by Gulab Kumari Library, Calcutta, 1919.
123. Encyclopaedia of Religion & Ethics Ed. by Hastings, Edinburgh, 1908-26.
124. Gaina Sutras, Part I, (Acãrânga Sutra & Kalpa Sūtra) Tr. by Dr. Hermann Jacobi, (Sacred Books of the East Series, Vol. XXII) Oxford, 1884.
125. Gaina Sūtras, Part II, (Sūtrakritāñga Sūtra and Utträdhyayana Sutra) Tr. by Dr. Hermann Jacobi (Sacred Books of the East Series, Vol. LV), Oxford, 1894.
126. Hindu Polity by Dr. K.P. Jayaswal, Pub. by the Bangalore Printing and Publishing Co., Bangalore, 1955.
127. Hindus by Ward.
128. History and Doctrines of the Ājivīkās by Dr. A. L. Basham, Luzac & Co., London, 1951.

Page #172

152
Mahāvīra and Buddha 129. History of Ancient India by Dr. Rama Shankar
Tripathi. 130. History of Buddhism. 131. Indische Palaeogrophie by Bühler. 132. Jainism in North India (Gujrati Translation) by
Chiman Lal Jechand Shah, Longmans Green & Co.,
London, 1937. 133. The Life of Buddha by E.J. Thomas, London, 1931. 134. The Life of Buddha by W.W. Rockhill, London, 1907. 135. Life of Gaudama by Bigandet. 136. Miscellaneous Essays by C.T. Colebrook, London,
1873. 137. Mahāvamśa, Tr. by Geiger, Pub. by the Pali Text
Society, London, 1912. 138. Outline of Jainism, by G.L. Jaini, Pub. by Cambridge
University Press, 1916. 139. The Political History of Ancient India by Dr.
Hemchandra Raychaudhuri, Pub. by University of
Calcutta, 1953. 140. The Practical Sanskrit English Dictionary (3 vols.) by
Prin. V.S. Apte, Ed. by P. K. Gode & C. G. Curve
Pub, by Prasad Prakashan, Poona, 1957. 141. The Religions of India by E. W. Hopkins, Pub. by
Grinn & Co., Boston, U.S.A., 1895 (Handbooks on the History of Religions, Vol. I, Ed. by Morris
Jestrow). 142. Studies on Mañjuśrimülakalpa by Dr. K.P. Jayaswal. 143. Sutta Nipāta Tr. by V. Fausboll in Sacred Books of
the East, Vol. X, part II, Oxford, 1881.

Page #173

Bibliography
153 144. Synchronismes Chinois by Tchang. 145. Vinaya Texts Tr. by Oldenberg and Rhys Davids in
the Sacred Books of the East, Vols. XIII, XVIII, XX, Oxford, 1881-85.
Journals, Commemoration Volumes, etc. 146. Anekānta (Bi-monthy), Pub. by Vira Seyā Mandira,
Delhi. 147. Ācārya Śrī Tulasi Abinandana Grantha, Pub. by
Ācārya Śrī Tulasi Dhavala Samāroha Samiti, Delhi,
1962. 148. Jaina Sāhitya Prakāśa. 149. Nava Bharat Times (Daily), Delhi. 150. Prabuddha Karņāțaka (Quarterly). 151. Bhikṣu Smrti Grantha, Pub. by Jain Svetāmbara
Terāpanthi Mahāsabhā, Calcutta, 1962. 152. Sramaņa (Monthly), Banaras. 153. Hindustan (Daily), Delhi. 154. B.C. Law Commemoration Volume. 155. Bhāratīya Vidyā, Pub. by Bharatiya Vidyā Bhavan,
Bombay. 156. Indian Antiquary, Bombay. 157. Indian Ephemenis. 158. Journal of Asiatic Society, Baptist Mission Press,
Calcutta. 159. Journal of Bihar and Orissa Research Society, Patna,
Bihar. . 160. Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, Bengal.

Page #174

154
Mahavira and Buddha
161. Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, Great Britain, Tribner and Co., London.
162. Mahāvīra Commemoration Volume, Vol. I, 1948-49, Pub. by Mahavira Jaina Society, Agra.
163. 2500 Years of Buddhism, Ed. by P. V. Bapat, The Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, May, 1956.

Page #175

INDEX
Ancient India 831 Abhaya Kumāra 47, 53, 114n
Anekanta 135, 135n Abhaya Kundra Sutta 47n
Argas 82n, 103n Abhimanyu 109n
Anguttara Nikaya Atthakatxa xvi, Acāränga Sintra 3. 3n, 4
xvin, 117, 117n, 141n Ācārya Sri Tulsi Abhinandana Añjana 133 Grantha xvii
Aniruddha 97n, 98, 99n, 100n, 106, Adhisimakrishna 109n
107n Aganas, Jain xvii, xix, 2, 3n, 1,5,9, Anuvrat Movement xvii 13, 18, 26, 58, 59, 62, 71, 7?, 80, Apabhrainía 130 82, 82n, 9, 115
Apte, Vaman Shivram, Prof. 77n Age of Imperial Unity, The
Archaeological Survey of In:lia V, 126n, 132n
103n Age of Nandas and Maryas 97n
Arhata 28n Aggrawal, V.S., Dr., 34, 33n, 105n
Aryaka 100n Ahimsa Vani 34
Arya Sariskrti Ke Mulādhara 9in Ahinsa Vivekû xviii
Asoka 18, 60, 91, 112, 113n, 120, Ajaka 100n
123ff Ajātaśatru (Konika) xxi, 98, 17, 23n,
Asoka 131n, 132n 24, 26, 28, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45ff 54,
Asokävadāna 120, 120n 55, 59, 60, 77, 78, 79, 93, 96, 971,
Asoka Ke Dharma Lekha 125n, 127n, 98n, 99, 107ff, 112, 115, 117, 118,
130n 119
Astrology 89 Ajita Keśa Kambali 56, 73, 75, 76. Aśvasena 97n 79, 116n
Avanti 84, 84n, 96, 97n, 100, 100n, Ājīvaka 38, 115, 116n
101, 106n, 107, 110n, 111n, 112n, Ālavi 141
121, 122 Alberuni 104n
Avantivardhana 100n, 101n, 110n Ambalatthikā 27n
Avasyaka Cürni 13n An Advanced History of India 21n. Avašyaka Kathā 18, 29n 33n. 58 84n, 86 377
Āvaśyaka-Niryukti Dipikā 122, 122n Ananda 27n, 52, 55, 56, 64. 65. 68. Aupapātika Sūtra 11n, 12n 77, 129
Ayutāyusa 111n 155

Page #176

156
Mahāvīra and Buddha
Banerjee, Dr. 101n, 102n Bangaculiā 89n Banthia, Shri Kastur Chand 7, 29 Bārhadrathas 109n, 110n, 1lln Barnett, L.D., Dr., 132n Basādh 16 Basham, A.L. Dr., 44, 57n Benaras 129 B.C. Law Commemoration Volume 92n Bhadreśvara 19 Bhagavāna Buddha 35, 93n, 116n Bhagavali Sūtra 23, 23n, 38, 38n, 71, 71n, 115 Bhagwan Lal Inderji, Pt., 1,93 Bhagavāna Mahāvīra Aura Mahātnā
Buddha 35 Bhānakas 28n Bhārata Kā Brhat Itihāsa 22n, 83n Bharat Ke Prācīna Rāja Vanisa 83n Bharatiya Itihasa Ki Bhimikā 17n Bharātīya Prācīna Lipimālu 90n Bharatiya Vidyā 7 Bhasma-graha 89 Bhatt, Janardan, 910, 94n, 123n,
127n, 130n Bhikṣu Smrti Grantha xvii, 81n Bigandet 133n Bihar xvi, 16, 30 Bimbisāra (Śrenika) xvi, 23, 24, 43, 47, 48, 93, 98, 98n, 99n, 106, 107n, 112n, 115 Book of Discipline 13n Book of Kindred Sayings 13n, 72n Brahmagiri 125 Brahmavidhvaṁsanam 89n BỊhadratha-dynasty 100n, 109n, 110n Brhadvala 109n
Bșhaspatimitra 103n Běhatkarma 1lln Brliat Kathāmañjari 105n Buddha : His Life, His Order, His Teachings in, 117n Buddha-caryā xvi, svin, 6n, 28n,
57n, 93n, 116n Budoha Kālina Bhārata 91n, 94n Buddha Purva Kā Bhāratiya Itihāsa
112n Buddhist xvi, xix, In 10, 16, 18, 21. 32, 33, 35, 38, 41, 60, 62, 69, 70, 71, 82n, 92n, 94ff, 112n, 121, 128, 129, 132n Buddhist India 6n, 13n, 95n Buddhisın in Translation 92n Buddhist Suttas 28n Buddhist Tripitakos xvii, xix, 2, 8, 9, Puudalsi 10, 14, 15, 18, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32n, 34, 35, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 47, 61, 62, 63, 70, 72, 80, 81, 82, 1041,
113, 115, 116, 118 Bühler, Dr. 92, 103n, 130, 130n, 131,
132 Burma 133
Caitya 129 Calcutta xvii Caliyaparvata 141 Cambridge History of India 99n,
101n, 104n, 108n. 131, 132n Cantonese date 59, 60, 61, 91 Cellanā 41 Cetaka 9, 13, 14 Ceylon 95, 114, 132n Ceylonese Chronicle, See Mahāvanía Champā 12, 60, 71, 93n, 118

Page #177

Chandragupta Maurya 18, 19, 21, 22, 45, 46, 53, 60, 83, 84, 84n, 94n, 96, 103ff, 120
Index
Chandragupta Maurya and His Times 83n, 96n. 119n
Charpantier, Jarl, Dr. 29, 30, 34, 60, 61, 92
Chronology, Puranic 94ff, 108, 121 Chronology of Ancient India 99n, 112n
Council of Buddhists, First 10, 114n Second 6, 114n Third 114n, 129
Council of Jains 5
Colebrooke In
Colebrooke's Essays In Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum 92n Cullavagga 6, 13, 40, 47n Cunda Samaṇuddesa 64, 65, 66, 68 Cunnigham, Gen. 17n, 92
D
Caulukya dynasty 20
Chinese 90, 91, 105n
Chinese Turkestan 122, 123 Chronological Problems xvin, 45,
45n, 100n, 101n, 103n, 114n
Chronology, Ceyionese 221, 38, 39, Dhavala 86n 55, 59, 60, 93, 91ff, 108
Dialogues of Buddha 77n
Chronology, Jaina 32, 33, 84, 91ff, Digha Nikaāya xvin, 2n, 10n, 14n, 39n, 40, 40, 41, 55n 65n, 66n, 77n, 117
108
Digambara xvi, 34, 69, 70n, 86 Dipavamsa 94, 95, 108, 113, 114 Divyavadana 98n Dotted record, see Cantonese date Drdhasena 11ln
Dahar Sutta 39n, 72n
Darśaka 99n, 100n, 106, 107n, 108 Darsana Digdarśana 17n Darśana Aura Cintana 25n Das, Sarat Chandra 91n Datta, K.K. 21n, 33, 58, 84n Delamaine, Major In

Delhi xvii
Der Buddhismus 93n
Devadatta 13, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51,
52, 133
Devarddhi 5
Devaria 17n
Dhammapada 92n, 131n
Dhammapada Atthakatha 57n
Dharma Aura Darśana 83n
Dharmananda Kauśambi 35, 70, 93
116n
Dharmanetra 11ln
157
Dutt, Dr. Nalinākṣa 17
Dynasties of the Kali Age 100n, 112n
E
Early History of India 91n, 93n, 95n, 104n, 107n, 114n Edicts, Aśoka's 123ff Eetzana cra133, 134
Eight sons of Mahāpadma 107 Ekarata 105
Encyclopaedia of Religion Ethics 35n
Epitome of Jainism 20n
Fa-hien 90 Ferguson 92

F
and

Page #178

158
Mahāvīra and Buddha
Fleet, Dr., 92, 130, 131 Fausboll, V. 40n, 77n
G
Hemacandrācārya 131, 14n, 19, 20,
27, 58 Hinayāna Buddhism 114 Hindi 7, 39 Hindu Civilizction, See. Hindu
Sabhyatā Hinduis in Hindu Sabliyatā 31, 34n, 59n Hindustan Standard xvii Hira Lal Jain, Dr. 83n History of Birdchisi 105n Hiuen Tsang so Hoernle, Dr. 35, 36 Hopkins, E.W.92n Horner, I.B. xix, 13n
Gaina Sutras 1, 3n, 5 Gamali, Sce Jamāli Gahadhara 69, 81 Gandhian xviii Ganges 16, 17 Gamipițakas xvii Gautama Svāmi 1, 69 Gayā 53, 1lón, 120 Geiger 92, 92n, 99n, 114n German 7 Girivraja 98n Gode, P.K. 77 Gopālaka 100n, 1010 Gorkhpur 17, 17n Gośālā Mankbaliputra xvi, 4,
38, 40, 42, 44, 45, 56, 57, 571, 70, 73, 75, 76, 78, 93, 96, 115, 116,
llon Gosh, Krishna Chandra 20 Gujrati 7 Gulabpura High School xix Gunabhadra 87 Gupta era 84, 87ff Guptas 87ff Gupia Samrajya Kā Itihiasa &en, 87n
Ikşavāku-dynasty 10n Triú an Antiquary Son, 87n, 92n, 93n,
100n, 130n, 13 in Indian Ephemenis 92n Indislie Palacographie 10?n Indrabnūti In, 69, 71
Jacobi Hermann, Dr. xix, 47, 57n,
60. 61, 70, 93 Jains xvi, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14,
15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 29, 37, 41, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 65, 67, 69, 71, 81, 83, 84, 31n, 86, 87, 88, 89,
941f, 100, 121, 122 Jain Agamas Sec Agamas, Jain Jaina bhārati 170, 46, 135, 135n juin Philosophy and Modern Science
H
Hamilton, Dr. In Hare, E.M. xix Hariramsa Purana Sen, 87n Hastin (King) 88 Hastināpura 109n Hastings 36n Häthigumphā inscription 101, 103n
xviii
Juinu Sahitya Aura lühiasa, 17n Jaina Satya Prakäsa 83n Jain Sūtras Sce, Agamas, Jain

Page #179

Index
159
Jaina Svetambara Tarāpantha Sect Kaniska 45, 46 xviii, xviiin
Kapilavastu 4, 128, 141 Jainisin xix
Kapur, Yadunandan 131n Ja nisn in North India 103n
Karlayle 17n Jaipur xvii
Karve, C.G. 77n Jamāli 5 71
Kāśi 97n Jainbu Kumara (Svāmi) 24, 24n Katlasaritsugara 12 Japanese 92
Katson 133, 134 Jarasandha 109n
Kausambi 109n, 141 Jatinga Rameshwar 125
Kausika Gotra 6 Jayäcārya, Shrimat 89
Kautilya 94 Jayaswal K.F., Dr. 32/8, 31, 57n, Kein, Dr. 93 101n 102n, 104n, 105n
Kevalin 24, 69 Jetaya1a 129
Khaluya Rohgutta 6 Jina 33, 59
Khāravela 10111 Jinasenācārya 86, 87, 87n
Khanda 50 Jina Vijay Ji, Muni 35, 36
Kotan 91, 123 Jivaka Kumar Bhrtya 77, 79
Konika Ss. Ajātaśatru Journal of Asiatic Society, 91n
Košala 109n, 110n Journal of Bihar and Orissa Research Krsna 103n,
Society 32, 32n, 101n, 102n, 103n, Ksatriyakunda 16 104n, 106
Ksemajit 97n, 98n, 106, 112n Journal of Royal Asiatic Society 91n, K emaka 109.7. 111n 921, 103n
Kşemavardhana 97n, 98n, 106 Kşemendra 105n
Külavālaya, monk 18 Kahdali 19, 20
Kumārapala 20, 21 Kākavarna 977, 98n, 1051, 106, 108, Kusinagara (Kusināra) 15, 171, 55, 103n, 112n
129 Kalkirājā 87, 88
Kusthálanagara 93n Kāläśoka 107n Kālāśoka's sons 107n Kaliaga 101n, 103n, 10+n Kaipa Sutra In, 2n, 3, 30, 5, 17n, 89n Kāluganā, Achārya Sri 4n
Lassen, Prof. 108n Kalyāna Vijay Ji, Muni 37ff, 43, 44, Law, B. C. 92n
47, 571, 70, 71, 85n, 9in, 95n, Liccharis 16, 26 96n, 97n, 99n, 108n
Licchuad 16 Kannada 134n
Life of Buddha, The 54n, 121 Kamta Prasad Jain, Dr. 34, 35
Life of Gaudama 133n
қ

Page #180

160
Malāvira and Buddha
M
N
Lumini 128
Makkula Parvata: 117r. ! Lunar dynasty icon
Maurya Era 102n, 1030 Mauryas 19, 58, 102n; "H
Max Müller 3, 6, 92, 131 Magadha 9, 13, 17, 47, 48, 77, 78, 79,
Mehta, Ganga Prasad 1941 83, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100n, 101,
Merutunga 33, 59, 83, 85n, 86n, 94 106n, 107, 109n, 110n, 111n
Misia & Misra 112n Māgadhas 109n
Mithila 139, 140 Mahåbāhu 111n
Moggallana 48, 53, 129 Mahābhārata War 109, 112n .
M recha-Kaţika 122, 122 , Mahākaśyapa 129
Mujjaffarpur 16 Mahānāma 95
Mukherjee, Dr, Radha Kumud 11, Mahānandi 98n, 104ff
34, 83n, 96n, 99n, iden, 119n, Mahāpadma Nanda 106, 107, 107n
126, 127, 132n Mahāparinirvāņa Sutta 2n, 14n 26,
Munda 97n, 98n, 99, 99n, 100n 27, 28n, 29n, 55n, 70, 113n
Mysore 134n Mahāsena 121 Mahā Śilā Kantaka War 9, 18, 23, 28, 115
Nahar, Puran Chandra 20 Mahāvagga 116n
Nāgadaśaka 99n, 106, 107n Mahāvana 117n
Nāgānika 103n Mahavamsa (Ceylonese Chronicle) Nagrăjaji, Muni Shri xvi, xvii
18, 21, 22, 22n, 55, 55n, 59, 91, Nālā 141
92n, 93, 9tff, 99n, 107ff, 113ff Nalăgiri (The elephar 30 Mahāvira Cariyam 86n
Nänäghāta Inscription 103n Mahāvīra Commemoration Volume Näla ndā 27n, 139, 140 17n, 134n
Namotthuņam 12 Mahāvīra Jayanti Smárikà xvii Nanda dynasty (Nandas) 96ff, 107n, Mahendra (Son of Asoka) 132n
108n Mahendra Kumāra 'Dviteeya' Muni Nandivardhana 98ff xixn
Näsika inscription 103n Mahendra Kumāraji 'Prathama' Nathmalji, Muni Shri, iv i Muni Shri xix
Nãthadvārä xviiin Mahinetra Illn, 112n
Nava Bharaia Times xvii, xviii Majjhima Nikaya 47n, 63
Nemicandra, Siddhanta Cakravarti Mājumdar, R. C., Dr. 2!n, 336, 58, 86, 87 61, 84n
Nicakşus 109n Mallas 15, 16, 17, 55, 66, 67
Niggantha Nātaputta 39, 39n, 40, 56 Mallināth 29
63, 64, 65, 67, 70, 71, 73, 75, 76, Målvā 84n
79, 81, 116n Mañusri-Mülakalpa 105n
Niramitra 11 in
Nasik

Page #181

Index
161
130ff !
O
kate of Buddha's 6, 7, 19, Pāțaliputra 99n, 100n, 106, 107 21. 25, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, Patnā 15, 17, 113n 37, 38, 39n. 43, 45, 46, 59, 60, Pattāvali of Sarasvati Gaccha 32 W, 90ff, 107, 119ff, 123, 126, Pāvā xvi, 5, 15ff, 30n, 63ff, 110
Pavarika 27n Nirvāṇa, Date of Mahävira's 5ff, 7, Pilley, Diwan Bahadur Swami Kannu
19fi, 23n, 25, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, 92 37, 37n, 43, 45, 46, 58, 60, 61, Political History of Ancient India 83ff, 93, 99, 119, 120, 122n
on, 22n, 89n, 93n, 97n, 93n, 114n, Niśitha xvii
101n Prabuddha Karnataka 134n
Prācina Bhäratavarşa 96n, 104n Oldenberg 47n, 82
Pradhān, Dr. Sitā Nath 99n, 112n
Pradyota (Canda) 110n, 112n Oza, Gaurisankara 83n, 10n
Prādyotas (Pradyota dynasty) 100,
100n, 110n, 111n
Prasenjit, (King of Kośala) 72, 75 Padarauna 17n
Prasenajit 97n, 98n, 106, 109n, 110n, Pai, Govind 134
112n Pakudha Kaccäyana 56, 73, 75, 76, Pravrtivāduka 11 79, 116n
Premi, Näthurām 17 Pālaka 19, 20, 84n, 96, 100, 1010 Pulaka (Or Sunaka) 100n, 110n Pālaka dync: x 100
Punika 110n Pāli 40n, 95,, ".
Purāna. Väyu 94. 97. 98n. 99n. Pāņdava dynasty 109n
105n, 110, 112n, 121, 121n, 122n Pandey, Dr. Rajbali 17, 17n
Matsya 94, 99n, 100n, 105n, Pandey, Prof. Shrinetra 22n, 83n, 84n 110n, 112n, 121 Pandu Vasudeva 114n
Bhagvat 94, 121 Pāņini 104, 104n. 105n
Vişnu 94, 99n Pānini Kālīna Bharatavarsa 105n Purāņas 94ff, 104n, 105, 108, 109n, Papahura 17n
111n, 112n Pargiter, E.J. 100n, 112n
Pūraņa Kassapa 56, 57, 73, 75, 76, Päribbājaka 75, 76
78, 116n Pärileyaka 141
Purvas 82n Parišista Parvan 13n, 19, 19n, 20, Puşpapura (Pāțliputra) 105n 24n
Puśvamitra 103n Pārsva Natha, Lord 3, 97n Parývanāth Kā Cäturyäma Dharma 70n
Rahul Sānkrityāyan xvi, 6n, 17, 170, Pasādika Sutta 65n
28n, 39n, 40n, 57n, 93, 116n
R

Page #182

162
Mahāvīra and Buddha
Rājagrha xvi, 10, 15, 17, 24, 50, 51, 40, 41, 77n, 117, 118 60, 75, 77, 99n, 100, 100n, 106, 117, Samgha Bhedaka Khandhaka 40n 118, 139, 140, 141
Samghe upete 126, 127 Rājanagar xix
Samgiti-pariyāya Sutta 66n Rāmākola Rly. Station 17n
Samyukta Nikāya 13n, 39n, 72n Rāmpuria Shrichand 13n, 17, 46, 47, Samghabhadra 91 54, 55, 57
Samjaya Belațțhiputta 40, 56, 73, 75,Ranjan Suri Deo 17
76, 79, 116n Rapson EJ. 83n, 99n, 101n, 102n, Samskrit 130 101n, 106, 110n
Saptaparni Caves 10 Rathamušala war 9, 18, 28, 115 Säranätha 129 Raychaudhuri, H.C. Dr. 6n, 21n, Sāriputta 27, 28n, 48, 53, 67, 69, 71, 22n, 33n, 58, 84n, 93, 97n, 98n, 129 99n, 114, 131n
Sarvāstivādins 90 Religions of India 92n
Sätakarni 103n Reu, Pt. Visvesvara Nath 98n
Sathiyāmya Fajilnagara 17n Rhys Davids, Mrs. xix, 13n, 72n Satyajit Illn, 112n Rhys Davids, T.W. xix, 10, 13, 28n, Saubhāgya-pañcamyādi-parva-kathā29n, 55n, 77n, 92, 95, 117n
sa:igrha 85n Ripuñjaya 100n, 109n, 110n, Ilin, S.B.E. Vol. XXII 3n, 4n, 5n, 14n, 112n
17n Rockhill 121n
Vol. X 4n, on, 77n 92n, 131n Rşabhadatta 24
Vol. XI 28n, 29n, 55n, 113n Rsipattana 99n, 129
Vol. XVII 40n Rummindei 127, 129
Vol. XVIII 47n Rūpanātha 124, 129
Vol. XIII 92n
Vol. XL V 3n, 5n, on S
Schism in Jain Church 5, 6, 70n, 71
Scriptures, Buddhist, See Buddhist Sabhiya 75, 76
Tripițakas Sabhiya Sutta 40n, 77n
Jain, See Āgamas, Jain Senait Sahadeva 109n
111n Sahasarāma 124
Shah, T.L., Dr. 96n, 97n. 98n Saisunaga Nandivardhana 111n
Shah, Shanti Lal Dr. 45, 46, 100n, Sakarāja 33, 59, 87, 88
101n, 102n 106ff, 114 Saka era 80ff, 84
Sharma, Shambhu Lal xviii Śākyas 63, 65, 128, 133
Shastri, Majumdar 101n Sāmagāma 33, 63, 64, 68,
Shastri, Manmath Nath In, 117n Sāmagama Sutta 32, 33, 37, 63n Shastri, Nilkantha 97n Sāmaññyafala Sutta xvi, 10n, 11, 39n, Shih Huang Ti (Chin) 91, 123

Page #183

Index
163
Siddhānta 5 Siddhapur 125 Śiśunāga 97, 97n, 9€n, 99, 100n,
107ff, 1120 Siśunāga-dynasty Saiśunāgas) 96ff,
110 Smith, Dr. Vincent A. 91n, 93, 95n, 103n, 10in, 105n, 107n, 103n, 113, 127n, 129, 131n Sohan Lal Gandhi xix Somadeva 105n Somādhi 109n, 110n, 111n Sons of Mahäpadma Nanda 107n Sramaņa 66, 75, 76, 77, 78 Sramaņa (magazine) 7, 9n, 15n, 17n,
210 Śrāvaka 12 Śrāvasti (Sāvatthi) xvi 71, 72, 109n,
129, 141 Śreņika, See Bimbisāra Srutañjaya Illn Śrutaśrvā llin Studies ori Manjusrimülakalpa 105n Stūpa 10, 29 Subhadda 55, 56, 57 Sucala liin, 112n Suci 111n Sudharmā In, 13, 24, 69 Sukh Lal Ji, Pandit 25ff Sūkşetra Illn Sumitra 109n Sumsummāra Giri 141 Sunaka 100n, 110n Sunetra 111n, 11an Sūtrakrtārga Sutra 3, 3n, 82n Sutta Nipăta 40n, 77n Suvrata liin Svapnavāsavadattă 99n, 122n Svetāmbaras xvi, 69, 70n, 86 Synchronismes Chinois 910
Tagoo 134 Tamsuliya 1010 Tapāgaccha Pattāvali 85n Tāranātha 104n Tchang 91n Tejoleśyā 38, 70 Terāpantha, 4n, 89 Thomas, E.J. 54n, 92 Thomas, F.W. 131n Tibet 121 Tibetan Tradition 104, 112n, 121n Tiloyapannati 86n Tīratharkara in, 3, 4, 12n, 33, 57,
59, 60, 97n, 1160 Tirtharikara Mahāvīra 43n
139n Titthodhāra Prakarana 83 Tithogāli Painnaya 19n, 20, 83, 86n,
94, 122n Tosala 101n Trairāśika Matam 6 Trilokasára 86n, 87n Tripathi, Rama Shankar, Dr. 1019 Tripitakas, Buddhist, See Buddhist
Tripitakas Trișașțiśalākāpuruşacaritra 14n, 20,
20n Tryāstrimśa 141 Tsang, Hieun 105n Tukaram Krishna Laddu 93 Turkestan 91
Udāyi 97n, 98n, 99, 99n, 100, 106,
107n Udayana 108n, 109n, 110n Ujjain 19 Upadeśamālā 14n Upadhyaya, Baladeva 83n, 94n, 95n

Page #184

164
Mahāvīra and Buddha
Upadhaya, Dharmasagara 85n Upadhyaya, Vasudeva, Dr. 86, 87ff Upagupta 128 Upaka 116n Uitarādhyayana Sutra 3, 3n Uttarn Pradeśa Mem Bauddha
Dharina Ka Vikasa 17n Uttara Purāņa 14n, 87 Uttarāsarga 12
Vicāra Śreni 33n, 83, 86n, 94 Vidyunmāli 24 Vijaya 119n Vijayendra Suri, Acharya 17, 170,
43, 44, 139n Vikrmāditya 32, 33 Vikrama era 32, 33, 59, 81ff, 89,
140n Vinaya Fițaka xvii, 13n, 47n, 92n Vira Nirvana Sainvat Aura Jaina
Kālaganană 36n, 37ff, 89, 90, 93n,
9in, 95n, 96n, 97n, 99n Višākhayūpa 101n Visvajit Illn, 112 Vitihotras 100n, 110n Vividha Tirtha Kalpa 85n Vivști 111n Vulture's Peak 99
V
Vaidehi 78 Vairañjā 141 Vairāța 124 Vaiśāli 4, 6, 9, 13, 14, 18, 28, 29, 52,
117n, 139, 140, 141 Vaiśāli 17n Vajjis 9, 14, 26, 29, 52, 115 Vakkula 129 Vallabhi, Council of 5 Vänijyagrāma 139 Vartivardhana 1010 Vassakāra 9, 26, 28, 28n, 29 Vasudeva Sharan Aggraval Dr.
See Aggrawal V.S. Vatsa 110n Veņuvana 75
W
Ward In Wheeler 92 Woodward F.L. xix
Z
Zodiac 89

Page #185

Scholars' Views
165
Scholars' Views On The Present Work
It is well-known that there is plenty of disparate evidence and conflicting traditional information as well as a plethora of controversy amongst scholars about the dates of the Nirvāņa of Buddha and Mahāvīra. Shri Nagarajji has surveyed, in this respect, all the accessible material and different traditions specifying duly the sources etc., and his conclusion that Mahāvira attained Nirvāṇa in 527 B.C., and Buddha in 502 B.C. seems to be quite consistent in itself.
Dr. A.N. UPADHYE, M.A., D.LITT. Dean of the Faculty of Arts
University of Kolhapur
The work is full of deep scholarship, penetrating criticism and originality. It essays tackling problems which have not received due attention so far, and in my opinion, constitutes a most welcome contribution to the world of scholarship.
Prof. Dr. G.C. PANDE, M.A., D.PHIL. Head of the Deptt. of History and Indian Culture
University of Rajasthan

Page #186

166
Makāvīra and Buddha
Muni Shri Nagrajji has made an extremely reflective study of the subject in this work. On the basis of his research-work, he has found out that
(1) Mahāvira was senior to Buddha ; (2) Mahăvira predeceased Buddha ; (3) Mahāvira had earned much fame and veneration on
account of his religious leadership and erudition long before the enlightenment of Buddha.
The learned author has established that Buddha attained the Nirvana in 502 B.C., while Mahāvıra in 527 B.C. It should be noted that due to the lack of purely Indian sources, it is very difficult to decide the exact date of Buddha's death. On the one hand, the Ceylonese Chronicle Mahavamsa puts the event in 544 B.C., while on the other hand, by putting the event 218 years before the consecration of Asoka, 487 B.C. is also accepted as the date of Buddha's Nirvana.
527 B. C. is generally accepted to be the date of Mahāvīra's Nirvana. Nevertheless, some scholars have put forward some arguments against this date. But all of them are adroitly refuted by the author.
The author has critically discussed the views of Indian as well as foreign scholars such as Dr. Jacobi, Dr. Charpentier, Dr. Jayaswal, Dr. Shanti Lal Shah, Pt. Sukh Lalji, Muni Kalyna Vijayaji, Shri Vijayendra Suti and several other prominent historians. Such a contemplative and unbiased discussion of the problem of the contemporaneity and chronology of Mahavīra and Buddha is not found anywhere else.
Dr. DASHRATH SHARMA, M.A., Ph. D. Reader, Department of History
University of Delhi

Page #187

Scholars' Views
167
I am very much impressed by the discussion of the subject which has been made so profoundly by Muni Shri Nagrajji in his work. In my view, its English translation is necessary, for it will provide the non-Hindi speaking people with the opportunity of knowing the controversy which is existing regarding this problem and also the correct solution thereof.
Dr. B. CH. CHHABRA, M.A., M.O.L., Ph.D. (England) F.A.S.I. Jt. Director-General of Archaeology in India
Many a scholar of India as well as abroad have tackled the controversial problem of the contemporaneity and chronology of Mahavīra and Buddha. Muni Shri Nagrajji has unbiasedly and critically examined all these views and also he has presented a new solution, which, in my view, is quite unimpeachable.
The historical evidences, supplied by the author from the two-and-a-half millenium old remnants of the dark age, are so solid that their validity would not be easily challenged by scholars in the future. Author's researchful efforts, talent governed by austerities, and constant hard work are clearly manifested in this valuable discovery. The effort to discover the missing links of the Jain History constitutes, in fact, sādhanā, a way of achieving the ultimate aim, for it requires the whole life-each and every moment of life. I consider it as good as the sadhana of achieving the blissful state.
DR. PREM SAGAR JAIN, M.A., Ph. D. Professor of Digamber Jain College, Baraut (U.P.) & Editor, Anekanta (A Bimonthly Research Journal)

Page #188