Reconsidering Date Of Nirvana Of Lord Mahavira

Author(s): Sagarmal Jain
Publisher: Z_Jaina_Literature_and_Philosophy_a_Critical_Approach_001936_HR.pdf
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269749/1

Page #1

Reconsidering the Date of the Nirvāņa of Lord Mahāvira
The Jaina writers usually, after equating their dating with the Saka era, have concluded that after a period of 605 years and 5 months of the Nirvana of Mahāvīra, Saka became king. (Tiloypannatti 4 : 1499; Painnayasuttaim :I part: 1984 - Titthogālipainnayaṁ: (623). On the basis of this postulate, even today, the date of the Nirvana of Mahävira is held to be 527 B.C. Among the modern Jaina writers, Pt. Jugal Kishore Mukhtar (1956 : 26-56), of the Digambara sect, and Muni Sri Kalyana Vijaya (1966 : 159), of the Svetämbara sect, have also held 527 B.C. to be the year of the Vira Nirvāna. From about the 7th century A.D., with a few exceptions, this date has gained recognition. In the Svetămbara tradition, for the first time in the Prakraka entitled "Titthogāli,' (paiņnayasuttaim : I part : 1984 : Titthogāli 623) and in the Digambara tradition, for the first time in Tiloyapannatti (4 : 1499), it is clearly mentioned that 605 years and 5 months after the Nirvana of Mahavira, Saka became king. Both the texts were composed between 600 and 700 A.D. To the best of my knowledge, none of the earlier texts ever showed the difference between the Nirvana of Mahavira and the Saka era. But this much is definite that from about 600-700 A.D., it has been a common notion that the Nirvana of Mahävira took place in the year 605 before Saka. Prior to it, in the Sthaviravali of Kalpasūtra and in the Vacaka genealogy of the Nandisutra, the reference to the hierarchy of Mahavira is found, but there is no mention of the chronology of the Acāryas : therefore, it is difficult to fix a date of the Nirvana of Mahāvira on the basis of these texts. In the Kalpasutra (Sūtra-147, p. 145) only this much is mentioned that now 980 years (according to another version 993 years) have passed since the Vīra Nirvana. This fact makes only this much clear that after 980 or 993 years of Vira Nirvāņa, Ācārya Devarddhigani Kşamāśramana finally edited this last exposition of the present Canon. Similarly, in Sthānanga (7 : 41), Bhagavatīsūtra (9:222-229) and Āvasyaka Niryukti (778- 783), alongwith the reference to Nihnavas, a reference to after how much time of Mahāvīra's life-time and his Nirvāņa were they prevalent is found. Here only there are some clues by comparing which with the external evidences of definite date, we can contemplate the date of Nirvana of Mahāvira.
There have been differences of opinion from the very beginning on the date of Nirvāņa of Mahavira. Although, it has been clearly stated in Tiloyapannatti, a book recognised by the Digambara sect, that 605 years and 5 months after the Nirvāṇa of Mahavira, Saka became the king, there are four different statements found in this book, which are as follows: i. 461 years after Vira Jinendra attained salvation, Saka
became the king. ii. 9785 years after Vira Bhagavān attained salvation,
Saka became the king. iii. 14793 years after Vira Bhagavān attained salvation,
Saka became the king. iv. 605 years and 5 months after Vira Jina attained
salvation, Saka became the king.
Besides this, in Dhavalā; (4:1:44: p. 132-133), a commentary on Sackhandagama, there are three different statements as to after how many years of the Nirvana of Mahavira, Saka (Salivahana Saka) became the king : i. 605 years and 5 months after Vira Nirvāna. ii. 14793 years after Vira Nirvana. iii. 7995 years and 5 months after Vira Nirvana.
In Svetāmbara tradition there are two clear opinions as to how much time after the Nirvana of Lord Mahăvira Devarddhi's last assembly on Agama was held. According to the first opinion, it was composed 980 years after the Vira Nirvāna, whereas according to the second it was composed 993 years after the event.
It is significant also to note that in the Sytämbara tradition, there are two opinions regarding the date of Chandragupta Maurya's accession to the throne. According to the first, he ascended the throne in the year 215 of the Vira Nirvāna. However, in Titthogali Painnaya only this much has been mentioned that (after Vira Nirvāna) the region of the Mauryas started 60 years after the Palakas and 155 years after the Nandas (Painnayasuttäiṁ I part: 1984, Titthogāli Painnaya : 621), whereas according to the second opinion of Hemacandra (Parisista Parva : 8 339),' he ascended the throne 155 years after Vira Nirvana. Similarly, in Laghuposalik Pattāvali (p. 37) it is written that 155 years after Vira Nirvana Candragupta Maurya ascended the throne. Also, in Nagapuriya Tapägaccha

Page #2

Reconsidering the Date of the Nirvāṇa of Lord Mahävira
107
10
Patļāvali (p. 48) it is written that 155 years after the Vīra Nirvāṇa Candragupta became the king, (Vīrāt 155 varșe Candragupton pah). According to this Pattavali, the reign of Mauryan dynasty ended after 278 years of Vira Nirvāņa. Now the period of 189 B.C. as the end of the Mauryan dynasty can be justified only when the Vira Nirvāṇa is accepted as to be 467 B.C. It is worth mentioning here, that the historians have accepted 187 B.C. to be the date of accession to the throne of Puşyamitra. This second theory, presented by Hemacandra, is a hindrance in ascertaining the year 527 B.C. to be the year of the Nirvāņa of Mahävira. It is clear from these discussions that there has been a controversy regarding the date of the Nirvana of Mahāvira even in ancient times.
Since the old internal evidences regarding the date of the Nirvana of Mahävira were not strong, the Western scholars on the basis of the external evidences alone, tried to ascertain the date of the Nirvāṇa of Mahāvīra; and as a result many new theories came into light regarding the same. The following are the opinions of different scholars regarding the date of Mahävira's Nirvāṇa :
1. Hermann Jacobi' (It is to be noted that initially Hermann Jacobi accepted the traditional date 527 B.C., but later on he chaged his opinion), 476 B.C. He has accepted the reference found in the Parisista Parva of Hemacandra to be authentic which says that 155 years after the Vira Nirvana Candragupta Maurya ascended the throne, and he ascertained the date of Mahāvira's Nirvāṇa on the basis of this reference only.
2. J. Charpentier!0,467 B.C., He followed the opinion of Hemacandra and ascertained that the date of Nirvana of Mahāvira as to be 155 Years before Chandragupta Maurya.
3. Pandit A. Shanti Raja Shastri", 663 B.C., He considered the saka Era to be the Vikrama Era and establish the date of Nirväna of Mahavira as to be 605 years before the Vikrama Era.
4. Prof. Kashi Prasad Jayaswal.', 546 B.C., He has mentioned only the two traditions in his article "Identification of Kalki". He has not ascertained the date of Mahavira's Nirvāna. But at some other places he has considered 546 B.C. to be the date of Mahavira's Nirvana, adding 18 years between Vikarma's birth and his accession to the throne (470+18) he fixes the date of Mahāvira's Nirvāṇa as 488 years before Vikrama.
5. S.V. Venkateswara.", 437 B.C., His assumption is based on the Anand Vikram Era. This Era came into vogue 90 years after the Vikrama Era.
6. Pandit Jugal Kishor Ji Mukhtar.'4, 528 B.C. On the basis of various arguments, he has confirmed the traditional theory.
7. Muni Sri Kalyana Vijaya.', 528 B.C., While confirming the traditional theory, he has tried to remove the inconsistencies of the theory.
8. Prof. P.H.L. Eggermont.6, 252 B.C., The basis of his argument is equating the incident of Samghabheda of Tişyagupta in the Jaina tradition, which took place during the life time of Mahävira in 16th year of his emancipation. With the incident of Samghabheda and the act of drying up of the Bodhi tree by Tisyarakṣita in the Buddha Saṁgha, which took place during the reign of Asoka.
9. V.A. Smith', 527 B.C., He has followed the generally accepted theory.
10. Prof. K.R. Norman", About 400 B.C., Considering Bhadrabahu to be Chandragupta's contemporary, he fixed the period of 5 earlier Acāryas as 75 years, at an average of 15 years each, and thus fixed the date of Mahāvīra's Nirvana as 320+75 = 395 B.C.
In order to determine the date of the Nirvāņa of Mahavira, along with the Jaina literary sources we must also take into account the legendary and epigraphical evidence. We would follow the comparative method to decide which of the above-mentioned assumptions is authentic, and will give priority to the epigraphical evidences, as for as possinble.
Among the contemporaries of Lord Mahāvīra, the names of Lord Buddha, Bimbisāra-Śrenika and Ajātaśatru are well-known. The Buddhist sources give more information abourt them than the Jaina sources. The study of Jaina sources also does not give rise to any doubt about their contemporaneity The Jaina Agamas are mostly silent about Buddha's Life-history, but there are ample references to the contemporary presence of Mahāvīra and Buddha in the Bauddha Tripitaka literature. Here we shall take only two of the references. In the first reference there is a mention of the event of Dighanikāya (Sāmññaphalasutta : 2:1: 7)' in which Ajätasatru meets many of his contemporary religious heads. In this reference, the chief minister of Ajātasatru talks abour Nirgrantha Jñātņputra like this: "Master, this Nirgranta Jñātīputra, is the master of the sect as well as the monastery, teacher of the sect, a scholar, and a renowned Tīrthankara, he is admired by many and respectable gentleman. He has been a long wandering mendicant (Parivrăjaka) and is middle-aged". It can be derived from this statement that at the time of

Page #3

108
Aspects of Jainology Volume VI
Ajātasatru's accession to the throne Mahavira's age must be about 50 years, because his Nirvana is supposed to have taken place in the 22nd year of Ajatasatru Kunika's rule. By deducting 22 years from his total age of 72 years, it is proved that at that time he was 50 years old (see Vira Nirvana Samvat aur Jaina Kāla Ganana, pp. 4-5). So far as Buddha's case is concerned, he attained his Nirvana in the 8th year of Ajätasatru's accession to the throne. This is the hypothesis of Buddhist writers. This hypothesis given rise to two facts. Firstly, when Mahavira was 50 years old, Buddha was 72 (80-8), i.e. Buddha was 22 years older than Mahavira. Secondly, Maḥāvira's Nirvana took place 14 years after Buddha's Nirvana (22-8-14). It is worth mentioning here, that in the reference occuring in the Dighanikāya (Sāmaññaphalasutta : 2 2 8), where Nirgrantha Jñātrṛputra and other five Tirthankaras have been called middle-aged, there is no mention of Gautama Buddha's age, but he must be 72 at that time because this event took place during the rule of Ajātaśatru Kuņika and Buddha's Nirvana took place in the 8th year of the rule of Ajätaśatru.
But contrary to the above-mentioned fact one finds another information in the Dighanikaya that Mahāvīra has attained Nirvana during Buddha's life-time. The reference from the Dighanīkāya is as follows (Pāsādikasutta: 6:1 : 1)20
"I heard this once that the Lord was residing in a palace built in the mango orchard of the Sakyas known as Vedhaññā in Śākya (country).
At that time Nigantha Nataputta (Tirthankara Mahavira) had recently died at Pāvā. A rift was created among the Niganthas after his death. They were divided into two groups and were fighting by using arrows of bitter words at one-another- "you don't know this Dharmavinaya (=Dharma), I know it. How can you know this Dharmavinaya? you are wrong in ascertaining, (your understanding is wrong), I am rightly ascertained. My understandint is correct. My words are maningful and yours are meaningless. The things you should have told first you told in the end and vice-versa. Your contention is mindless and topsyturvy. You presented your theory and withdrew. You try to save yourself from this allegation and if your have power, try to save yourself from this allegation and if you have power, try to resolve it. As if a war (-slaughtering) was going on among the Niganthas."
The house-holder disciples of the Nigantha Nataputta, wearing white dresses, also were getting indifferent,

distressed and alienated from the Dharma of Nigantha which was not expressed properly (durakhyāta), not properly investigated (duspravedita), unable to redeem (anairyäika), unable to give peace (ana-upasama-Samvartanika), not verified by any enlightened (a-Samyak- Sambuddhapravedita) without foundation = a different stupa and without a shelter."
Thus, we see that in the Tripitaka literature, on the one hand where Mahāvīra has been described as middleaged, on the otherhand, there is an information about the death of Mahavira during the life-time of Buddha. Since, according to the sources based on Jaina literature, Mahavira died at the age of 72, it is certain that both the facts cannot be true at the same time. Muni Kalyana Vijaya ji (Vira Nirvana Samvat aur Jaina Kāla Gaṇanā, 1987, p. 12) has called the theory of Mahavira Nirvana during the life-time of Buddha as a mistaken concept. He maintains that the incident of Mahavira's demise is not a reference to his real death, but to a hearsay. It is alos clearly mentioned in Jaina Agamic texts that 16 years before his Nirvana, rumour of his death had spread, hearing which many Jaina Sarmanas started shedding tears. Since the incident of the bitterargument between Makkhaligosāla, a former disciple of Mahavira, and his other Śramana disciples was linked with this rumour, the present reference from the Dighanikaya about the dath of Mahavira during the life time of Buddha is not to be taken as that of his real death, rather it indicated to the rumour of his death by burning fever caused by Tejoleśyä, hurled upon him by agitated and acutely jealous Makkhaligosāla after dispute.
Buddha's Nirvāṇa must have taken place one year and few months after the rumour abour Mahavira's death, therefore, Buddha must have attained Nirvana 14 years, 5 months and 15 days before Mahavira's Nirvana.
Since Buddha's Nirvana took place in the 8th year of Ajātaśatru Kunika's accession to the throne, Mahavira's Nirvāņa must have taken place in the 22nd year of his accession. Vira Nirvana must have taken place in the 22nd year of his accession (Vira Nirvana Samvat aur Jaina Kāla Gaṇanā, p. 4). Therefore, it is certain that Mahavira's Nirvana took place 14 years after the Nirvana of Buddha. The fixation of the date of Buddha's Nirvana would definitely influence the date of Mahavira's Nirvana. First of all we shall fix the date of Mahavira on the basis of the Jaina sources and inscriptions and then we will find out what should be the date of Buddha's Nirvana and whether it is supported by the other sources.

Page #4

Reconsidering the Date of the Nirvana of Lord Mahavira
While determining the date of Nirvana of Mahāvira, we would have to keep in our mind that the contemporaneity of Acarya Bhadrabahu and Sthūlibhadra with Mahāpadma Nanda and Chandragupta Maurya; of Acarya Suhasti with Samprati; of Arya Mañkṣu (Mangu), Arya Nandila, Arya Nagahasti, Arya Vṛddha and Arya Kṛṣṇa with the period mentioned in their inscriptions and of Arya Devarddhigani kṣamāśramana with king Dhruvasena of Valabhi, is not disturbed in any way. The historians have unanimously agreed that Chandragupta ruled from 317 B.C. to 297 B.C. (Majumdar 1952 p. 168; Tripathi 1968 p. 139)., Therefore the same should be the period of Bhadrabahu and Sthulibhadra also. It is an undisputed fact that Chandragupta had wrested power from the Nandas and that Sthulibhadra was the son of Sakḍāla, the minister of the last Nanda. Therefore, Sthūlibhadra must be the younger contemporary and Bhadrabahu the older contemporary of Chandragupta. This statement that Chandragupta Maurya was initiated into Jaina religion, may or may not be accepted as authentic, still on the basis of the Jaina legends one must accept that both Bhadrabahu and Sthūlibhadra were contemporary of Chandragupta. The main reason behind Sthūlibhadra's renunciation could be Mahāpadma Nanda's (the last ruler of the Nanda dynasty) misbehaviour with his father and ultimately his merciless assassination (Titthogalipainṇayam: 787: Painṇayasuttaim I part: 1984). Moreover, Sthūlibhadra was initiated by Sambhūtivijaya and not by Bhadrabahu. At the time of first assembly on composition of Agama held at Pataliputra, instead of Bhadrabahu or Sthūlibhadra, Sambhūtivijaya was the head, because only in that particular assembly it was decided that Bhadrabahu will make Sthulibhadra to study the Purvatexts. Therefore, it seems that the first assembly was held any time during the last phase of the Nanda rule. The period of the first assembly can be accepted as before 155 years of the Vira Nirvana era. If we accept that both the traditional notions are correct and that Acarya Bhadrabahu remained Acārya from Vira Nirvana Samvat 157 to 170 and that Chandragupta Maurya was enthroned in 215 V.N., then the contemporaneity of the two is not proved. It concludes that Bhadrabahu had already died 45 years before Chandragupta Maurya's accession. On this basis. Sthulibhadra does not even remain the junior contemporary of Chandragupta Maurya. Therefore we have to accept that Chandragupta Maurya was on throne 155 years after Vira Nirvana. This date has been accepted by Himvanta Sthaviravalı (Muni Kalyana Vijaya: Vikram Era 1987: p.

109
178)22 and Parisista Parva (8: 339) of Acarya Hemacandra also. On this basis only the contemporaneity of Bhadrabahu and Sthulibhadra with Chandragupta Maurya can be also proved. Almost all the Pattavaliss accept the period of Bhadrabahu as an Acarya to be 156-170 V.S. (Paṭṭāvali Paraga Samgraha, p. 166; Vividhagacchiya Paṭṭāvalī Samgraha: I part: 1961 pp. 15, 37, 48). In Digambara tradition also the total period of the three Kevalis and the five Śrutakevalis has been accepted as 162 years. Since Bhadrabahu was the last Śrutakevali, according to the Digambara tradition his year of demise must be the year 162 of the Vira Nirvana Samvat. Thus, despite the fact that there is a difference of 8 years regarding the period of demise of Bhadrabahu as accepted by the two traditions, the contemporaneity of Bhadrabahu and Chandragupta Maurya is fully justified. Muni Shri Kalyana Vijaya (Śri Paṭṭāvali Paraga Samgraha: 1966: 52; Vira Nirvana Samvat aur Jaina Kāla Ganană: p. 137)23, in order to prove the contemporaneity of Bhadrabahu and Chandragupta Maurya, accepted the period of Sambhūtivijaya as an Acarya to be 60 years in place of 8 years. In this way, while accepting the date of the Nirvana of Mahavira as 527 B.C., he has tried to establish the contemporaneity of Bhadrabahu and Chandragupta Maurya. But it is only his imagination (ViraNirvana Samvat aur Jaina Kāla Gaṇanā - p. 137 & Paṭṭāvali Paraga Samgraha - p. 52)24; there is no authentic proof available. All the Śvetambara Pattavalis accept the date of the demise of Bhadrabahu to be the year 170 V.N.S. Also, in Titthogālī it has been indicated that the decay of the knowledge of the fourteen Purvas started in the year 170 V.N.S. Bhadrabahu was only the last of the 14 Purvadharas. Thus, according to both of the traditions - Śvetämbara and Digambara, the date of demise of Bhadrabahu stands as 170 and 162 of V.N.S. respectively.
On the basis of this fact, the contemporaneity of Bhadrabahu and Sthulibhadra with the last Nanda and Chandragupta Maurya can be proved only if the date of Nirvana of Mahāvīra is accepted as 410 years before V.S. or in the year 467 B.C. The other alternatives do not prove the contemporaneity of Bhadrabahu and Sthūlibhadra with the last king of the Nanda dynasty and Chandragupta Maurya. In Titthogali Painnayam (783-794) also the contemporaneity of Sthulibhadra and the king Nanda has been described. Thus on the basis of these facts it appears more logical to accept the date of the Nirvana of Mahavira as 467 B.C. Himvanta Sthavirävalt also mentions that Chandragupta was enthro-in 155 years after the Vi

Page #5

110
Aspects of Jainology Volume VI
Nirvana and that Vikramărka lived 410 years after the Vira Nirvāna (see Vira Nirvana Sarvat aur Jaina Kala-Gananā, p. 177). This also confirms the theory of accepting the date of Mahāvīra's Nirvāņa to be 467 B.C.
Again, in the Jaina tradition the contemporaneity of Arya Suhasti and the king Samprati is unanimously accepted. The historians have acknowledged the period of Samprati to be 231-221 B.C. (Tripathi : 1986 : p. 139)25 Accroding to the Jaina Pattāvalīs, the period of Arya Suhasti as Yuga Pradhāna Ācārya was 245-291 V.N.S. If we base our calculation on the assumption that Vīra Nirvāṇa took place in 527 B.C., we will have to accept that Arya Suhasti became the Yuga Pradhana Ācārya in 282 B.C. and died in 236 B.C. In this way, if we consider 527 B.C. to be the year of Vira Nirvana, then, in no way, the contemporaneity of Arya Suhasti and the king Samprati could be established. But, if we accept 467 B.C. to be the year of Vira Nirvana, then the period of Arya Suhasti as an Acārya starts from 222 B.C. (467-245=222). On this basis the contemporaneity is established, but the reign of Samprati extends to only one year during the Acaryaship of Arya Suhasti. But Arya Suhasti had come in contact with Samprati when he was a prince and the ruler of Avanti, and may be at that time Arya Suhasti was an influential Muni inspite of not being a Yuga Pradhāna Ācārya of the Samgha. It is remarkable that Arya Suhasti was initiated by Sthūlibhadra. According to the Pattāvalis, Sthūlibhadra was initiated in 146 V.N.S. and died in 215 V.N.S. It can be derived from this fact that 9 years before Chandragupta Maurya's accession, and during the last Nanda king (Nava Nanda), Arya Sthūlibhadra had already been initiated. If, according to the Pattāvalis, the total life of Arya Suhasti is considered to be 100 years and his age at the time of initiation to be 30 years, then he must have been initiated in 221 V.N.S. i.e. 246 B.C. (assuming the date of Vira Nirvana in 467 B.C.) It does prove the contemporaneity of Arya Suhasti with Samprati, but then, there is a difference of 6 years, if he is accepted to have been initiated by Sthūlibhadra himself because 6 years before he got initiated, in 215 V.N.S., Sthülibhadra has already died. It is also possible that Suhasti may have got initiated at the age of 23 or 24, and not at the age of 30. Even then, it is certain that on the basis of the references made in Pattavalis, the contemporaneity of Arya Suhasti and Samprati is possible only by accepting the date of Vira Nirvāṇa as 467 B.C. This contemporaneity is not possible if the date of the Mahāvīra Nirvana is accepted as 527 B.C. or any other later date.
Thus, by accepting the date of the Vira Nirvana as 467 B.C. the contemporaneity of Bhadrabāhu and Sthūlibhadra with Mahāpadma Nanda and Chandragupta Maurya and that of Arya Suhasti with Samprati can be proved. All other alternatives fail to prove their contemporaneity. Therefore, in my opinion, it will be more appropriate and logical to accept 467 B.C. as the date of the Nirvana of Mahävira.
Now we shall consider the date of the Nirvana of Mahāvira also on the basis of some of the inscriptions. Out of five names - Arya Mangu, Arya Nandil, Arya Nāgahasti, Arya Krsna and Arya VỊddha, mentioned in Mathurā inscriptions (see Jaina Silalekha Samgraha, articles 41, 54, 55, 56, 57 and 63) first three are found in Nandisutra Sthaviravali (Gäthä: 27-29) and remaining four names are found in Kalpasūtra. According to the Pattāvalis, the period of Arya Mangu as a Yugapradhana Ācārya is considered to be in between 451 and 470 V.N.S. (Vira Nirvana Samvat aur Jaina Kala Ganana, p. 112). On acceptiong the date of the Vira Nirvana Samvat aur Jaina Kala Garanä, p. 112). On accepting the date of the Vira Nirvana as 467 B.C. his period extends from 16 B.C. to 3 A.D. and if it is 527 B.C. his period extends from 76 B.C. to 57 B.C. Whereas, on the basis of the inscriptions (Jaina Silalekha Samgraha article No. 54) his period stands as Saka Samvat 52 (Havişka year 52), i.e. 130 A.D. In other words, while considering the period of Arya Mangu as indicated by Pattavalis and inscriptions there is a difference of 200 years if the date of Vira Nirvana is accepted as 527 B.C. and if it is 467 B.C. there is a difference of 127 years.
I n several Pattavalis, even the name of Arya Mangu, is not mentioned. Therefore, the theories, concerning his period, based on the Pattavalis are not authentic. Moreover, the only one Pattävali called Nandisutra Sthaviravali, which mentions Arya Mangu, does not indicate the teacher-taught (Guru-Sisya) tradition. Therefore, there are chances of the omission of certain names which has been confirmed by Muni Kalyana Vijayaji himself (Vira Nirvana samvat aur Jaina kāla Gananā, pp. 121 & 131). Thus it is not possible to establish the date of the Mahāvira's Nirvana on the basis of the inscriptional evidences related to Arya Mangu, because on this basis neither the traditional belief in the date of Mahavira's Nirvana as 527 B.C. nor the scholars' opinion, as 467 B.C., could be proved correct. On equating the Pattāvalis with the inscriptions, the date of Vira Nirvana falls around 360 B.C. The reason of this uncertainty is the presence of various wrong conceptions regarding the period

Page #6

Reconsidering the Date of the Nirvana of Lord Mahavira
of Arya Mangu.
So far as Arya Nandil is concerned, we find the reference to his name also in the Nandisutra. In the Nandisutra Sthavirāvalī (Gāthā, 27-29), his name appears before Arya Nagahasti and after Arya Mangu. There is an inscription of Nandika (Nandil) of the Saka Samvat 32 in the inscriptions of Mathura (see Jaina Šilalekha Samgraha, article No. 41); in another inscription of the Śaka Samvat 93, the name is not clear, only 'Nadi is mentioned there. (see Jaina Šilalekha Samgraha, article No. 67). Arya Nandil is referred to also in the Prabandhakośa and in some ancient Paṭṭāvalis, but since at no place there is any reference to his period, it is not possible to establish the date of the Nirvana of Mahavira on the basis fo this inscriptional evidence.
Now let us consider Nagahasti. Usually in all the Paṭṭāvalīs, the date of the demise of Arya Vajra, has been considered as 584 V.N.S. After Arya Vajra, Arya Raksita remained the Yuga Pradhana Acarya for 13 years, Puşyamitra for 20 years and Vajrasena for 3 years, i.e. Vajrasena died in the year 620 V.N.S. In Merutunga's Vicaraśreņi, the period of Arya Nagahasti as the Yuga Pradhana has been accepted as continuing for 69 years, i.e. Nagahasti was the Yuga Pradhana from 621 to 690 V.N.S. (Vira Nirvana Samvat aur Jaina Kala Ganană, p. 106 note). If Hastahasti of the Mathura inscription is Nägahasti, then he is also referred to as the guru of Maghahasti in the inscription of the Śaka Samvat 54, which establishes him of before 131 A.D.
It we accept the date of the Vira Nirvāņa as 467 B.C., then the period of his Yuga Pradhanaship extends between 154 and 223 A.D. According to the inscriptions he had a disciple in 132 A.D. yet one can be content by assuming that he must have initiated some one 22 years before being a Yuga Pradhana. If we accept his life-span to be 100 years, he must have been 11 years old when he is supposed to have initiated Maghahasti. It seems almost impossible to believe that he was able to initiate somebody by his sermons at the age of 11 and that such an underage disciple was able to perform the Mürti-Pratisthā. But if, on the basis of the traditional concept, we accept the Vira Nirvāṇa year to be before 605 of the Saka Era or 52 B.C., then the references made in the Paṭṭāvalīs tally the inscriptional evidences. On this basis his tenure of Yuga Pradhanaship extends from 16 to 85 of the Śaka Era, Maghahasti, one of his disciples was able to perform the Murti-Pratistha by his sermons. Although common sense would hardly accept it as logical that his Yuga Pradhanaship extended for 69 years, yet because of

111
the fact that it considers the information given in the Paṭṭāvalīs to be correct, this inscriptional evidence about Nagahasti supports the date of Vira Nirvāņa as 527 B.C.
Again, in one of the inscriptional sketches of Mathura, Arya Kṛṣṇa with that Arya Kṛṣṇa mentioned after Śivabhūti in Kalpasūtra Sthavirāvalī (last part 4 :1), then his period on the basis of the Pattavalis and Viseṣavasyakabhāṣya (Gatha: 2552-2553), could be established around 609. V.N.S., because as a result of the dispute over clothes between the same Arya Kṛṣṇa and Śivabhūti the Botika, Nihnava came into extistence. The period of this dispute is fixed as 609 V.N.S. If we accept the Vira Nirvana year to be 467, then the period of Arya Kṛṣṇa is supposed to be as 609-467-142 A.D. This inscriptional sketch belongs to 95+78=173 A.D. Since Arya Kṛṣṇa has been figured as a deity, it is natural that 20-25 years after his death, in 173 A.D., this sketch must have been made by some Arya Arha, one of his follower disciples. In this way, this inscriptional evidence can maintain compatibility with other literary reference only when 467 B.C. is established as the year of the Vira Nirvana. It is not possible to reconcile it with any other alternatives.
In the Mathura inscriptions (Jaina Šilalekha Samgraha: article no. 56 & 59), the name of Arya Vṛddhahasti is related with two inscriptions. One is from Saka Era 60 (Huvişka year 60) and the other from 79 of the same. According to th Christian era, these inscriptions belong to 138 and 157 A.D. respectively. If he is the Arya Vṛddha of the Kalpasūtra Sthaviravali and the Vṛddhadeva of the Pattavalis (Vividha Gacchiya Pattavali Samgraha: p. 17), then according to the Paṭṭāvalis, he was led to perform Mürti Pratisthā in Karnataka in the year 695 V.N.S. If we accept 467 B.C. to be the year of the Vira Nirvana, then this period can be fixed at 695-467-228 A.D. whereas the inscriptional evidences are from 138 and 157 A.D. But, if according to the traditional concept the date of the Vira Nirvana is accepted as 527 B.C. then his period is to be fixed at 695-527-168 A.D. Therefore, on accepting 527 B.C. to be the Vira Nirvana year, the equation between this inscriptional evidence and the Pattavali based evidence is found to the matching well. On assuming 25 years to be the average period of tenure of each Acarya, his period should be around 625 V.N.S. because Vṛddha occupies the 25th place in Paṭṭāvalī. Thus his time can be fixed as 625467-158 A.D. which also proves the 467 B.C. as the period of Vira Nirvana.

Page #7

112
Aspects of Jainology Volume VI
The last evidence, on the basis of which the date of Mahavira's Nirvana can be established is king Dhruvasena's inscriptions and his period. According to the poupular belief, after the Valabhi assembly, first time Kalpasūtra was recited before a congregation at Anandpur (Vadanagar) in order to console the grieved King Dhruvasena on his son's death (Srikalpasütra: 147 pp. 145, Vinaya Vijaya: Commentary: p. 15-16). The period of Valabhi assembly is fixed as 980-993 V.N.S. There are several inscriptions of Dhruvasena available. The priod of Dhruvasena the first, is said to be from 525 to 550 A.D. (Parikh, Rasikalal: 1974 :40). If this event is related to the second year of his accession i.c. 526 A.D., then it is proved that Mahavira's Nirvana must have taken place in 993-526-467 B.C.
Thus atleast three of the six inscriptional evidences prove that the Nirvana of Mahāvīra took place in 467 B.C. Whereas the two evidences may prove 527 B.C. as the period of Vira Nirvana. But the dates based on the Paṭṭāvali could be incorrect; therefore, they cannot be an obstacle in determining the date of the Vira Nirvana as 467 B.C. One of these inscriptions is not helpful in fixing the date. These discrepancies are there also because the authenticity of the periods of the Acaryas given in the Paṭṭāvalī is doubtful and today, we have no grounds to remove these discrepancies. Still we derive from this discussion, that most of the textual and inscriptional evidences confirm the date of Mahavira's Nirvana as 467 B.C. In that case, one will have to accept the date of the Nirvana as 467 B.C. In that case, one will have to accept the date of the Nirvana of Buddha to be 483 B.C., which has been accepted by most of the western scholars, and only then it will be proved that about 15 years (14 years and 5 months) after the Nirvana of Buddha the Nirvana of Mahavira took place.
Notes:
1. a. Nivväṇe Virajine chavväsasadesu pañcavarisesum. Paṇamasesu gadesum sanjado saganio ahavā. b. pañca ya māsā pañca ya vasa chacceva hontivāsasaya pariņivvuassarihato so uppanno sago rāmā. Titthogali Painnayam, 623 2. bahuraya paesa avvattasamucchadugatiga abaddhiyā ceva. satte-e ninhaga khalu titthami u vaḍdhamanassa, (778) bahuraya jamalipabhavā jīvapaesä ya tisaguttao avvatta asaḍhao Samuccheya samittão. (779). gangão dokiriya chaluga terasiyana uppatti. theraya gotthamahila putthamabaddham parūvinti. (780)

savatthi usabhapuram seyaviyä mihilam ullugatiram. purimantaranji dasapura rahavirapuram ca nagaräim (781)
coddasa solasa vāsā cauddasavisuttara ya donni sayä. atthävisǎ ya duve pañceva saya u coyālā. (782) pañca saya calasiya chacceva saya ṇāvottara hoti. nänupattiya duve uppannā viņavveue sesă. (783) 3. Virajine siddhigade causadaigisatthiväsaparimane. kālammi adikkante uppanno ettha sakarão. (461) ahavā vīre siddhe sahassanavakammi sagasayabbhahie. panasidimmi yatide panamase (Y. 9785, M5) sakanio jādo. 1497.
pathantaran.
coddasasahassasagasayatenaudivasakālavicchede. (19793) viresarasiddhīdo uppanno ahavā. 1498. pathantaram
nivväṇe virajine chavasasadesu pañcavarisesu. panamāsesu (Y. 605, M.5) gadesu sanjado saganio ahavä, 1499.
pāthāntaraṁ.
Tiloyapannatti - section 4, 1496 1499. 4. avanidesu pañcamāsahiyapañcuttarachassadavāsāṇi havanti aiso virajinindanivvänagaddiväsädo jāva sagakalassa ādi hodi tavadiyakalo, kudo? (605) edamhi kale sagaṇarindakalammi pakkhitte vaddamānajinanivvudakalagamaṇādo. vuttam ca-pañca ya masa pañcaya vāsā chacceva hoti väsasaya. sagakāleṇa ya sahiya thaveyavvo tado rasi (41) anne ke vi äiriya coddasasahassa - sattasad-tinaudivasesu jiņaṇivväṇadiņādo aikkantesu saganarinduppattim bhananti (14793) vuttam ca-gutti-payattha-bhayaim coddasarayaṇai samaikantaim. pariņivvude jininde to rajja saganaribdassa. (42)
anne ke vi äiriya evam bhananti. tam jaha-sattasahassa ṇavasaya pañcaṇaudivarisesu pañcamāsāhiesu vaḍdhmäṇajinaṇivvudadinado aikkantesu saganarindarajjuppatti jādo ti, ettha gähä
sattasahassa ṇavasada pañcāṇaudī sampañcamāsǎ ya. aikantā vāsāṇam jaiyä taiyā saguppatti: (43) (7995) edesu tisu ekkena hodavvam na tinnamuvadesaṇa saccattam, annonṇavirohado tado jāņiya vattavvaṁ. --Dhavalā tika samanvita Satkhandagama, Khanda 4, Bhaga 1, Pustak 9, p. 132-133 (section 4/1/44) 5. samanassa bhagavao Mahavirassa Jäva savvadukkhapahiņassa navaväsa sayaim vikantaim dasamassa vasasayassa ayam asiime samvacchare kale gacchai,

Page #8

Reconsidering the Date of the Nirvana of Lord Mahavira
113
vāyanantare puna ayam tenaue sarnvacchare kälar gacchai iha disai.
Sri Kalpasūtra 147, p. 145. 6. pälagaranno sathi panapannasayam viyana nandānam maruyana athasayam tisā puņa pusamitānam.
-- Titthogāli painnayar (Painnaya Suttaim) 621 When 60 päkaja + 155 Nandavansa = 215 years had
passed, the rule of the Maurya dynasty began. 7. a. eveṁ ca Srimahāvīra mülervarsasate, pañcapanca
sadadhike candragupto ābhavannspana.
-- Parisistaparva-Hemacandra, sarga 8/339. b. Laghuposalika pattāvali, Nägapuriyatapägaccha
pattāvali (ed. Jinvijaya 1961) and Himavanta Theravali also acknowledge that Chandragupta Maurya ascended to the throne 155 years after the
Vira Nirvana. 8. It is remarkable that the year of the Vira Nirvana may
be accepted as 527 B.C. only when Chandra Gupta Maurya's accession is accepted to have taken place in the year 215 of the Vira Nirvana era. It the date of his accession is accepted to be the year 155 of the Vira Nirvana, then we should accept 467 B.C. to be the date
of the Vira Nirvana. 9. Jacobi, H., Parisistaparva : year 1891 : P. introduction
p. 5; He considers rhe reference of the Parisistaparva of Hemacandra to be authentic according to which 155 years after the Vira Nirvana, Chandragupta Maurya's accession took place, and on this only basis he
determined the date of the Nirvana of Mahavira. 10. Charpentier, 1992: 13-16; He also based, his arguments
ofn Hemacandra and considered that the Nirvana of Mahāvira took place 155 years before Chandragupta
Maurya. 11. Shastri, A. Shantiraj: Anekānta 1941, Vol. 4, No. 10:
He considered the saka Samvat to be the Vikram Samvat and accepted that 605 years before the Vikram
Samvat Mahāvīra attained Nirvana. 12. Jayaswal, 1917: 151-152; In his article entitled "The
Historical Position of Kalki and his Identification with Yasodharman', he has mentioned only two traditions. He made no mention of the date of the Nirvana of
Mahāvīra. 13. Venkateshwar, 1917, p. 122-130; His opinion is based
on the Anand Vikram Sarvat. This was is vague 10
years after the Vikram Samvat. 14. Mukhtar : 1956 : p. 26-56; On the basis of various
arguments he confirmed the traditon accepted theory.
15. Muni Kalyana Vijaya : Vikrama Samvat aur Jaina
Kālagananā, 1987 : p. 149; while confirming the traditional accepted theory, he also tried to remove its
inconsistencies. 16. Eggermont, P.H.L. He has given his arguments equating
the very event of schism by Tişyagupta which took place during the 16th year of the attainment of Lord Mahāvira with the event of drying the Bodhi tree by Tisyagupta and event of schism in Buddha Order during
the reign of Asoka. 17. Smith : 1969 : 141 He accepted the common popular
theory. 18. Narman, K.R. "Observation on the Dates of the Jina
and Buddha" in Bechert, H. The Dating of the Historical
Buddha, a Pt. I. p. 300-312 Gottingen. 19. aijataropikho rājāmacco răjänar māgadham ajätasatt
um vedehiputtar etadavoca "ayam, deva, nigantho nātaputto sanghi ceva gani ca ganācariyo ca, fato, yasassi, titthakaro, sādhusammato bahujanassa, rattaññu, cirapabbajito, addhagato, vayoanuppatto. Digha
nikaya, Samaññaphalasutta. 2/17, 20. evar me sutam. ekam samayam bhagavā sakkesu
viharati vedhanna nama sakyä tesar ambavane päsāde. tena kho pana samayena nigantho nätaputto pavayam adhunākālankato hoti. tassa kalankiriyaya bhinnä nigantha dvedhikajätā bhandanajäta kalahajätä vivadapannā aññamaññar mukhasattihi vitudantä viharanti." na tvaṁ imaṁ dhammavinayam äjänäsi, aham imam dhammavinayarn äjänami, kim tvalm imam dhammavinayam äjänissasi? micchapatipanno tvamasi, ahamasmi sammăpatipanno. Sahitam me, asahitam te. purevacaniyām pacchã avaca pacchāvacaniyam pure avacea. Adhicinnar te viparávattam āropito te vădo, niggahito tvamasi. cara vādappamokkhaya, nibbethehi vă sace pashosi'ti. vadho yeva kho maññya niganthesu nätaputtiyesu vattati. ye pi niganthassa nātaputtassa sävaka gihi odātavasana te pi niganthesu nätaputtiyesu nibbinnarüpa virattarūpā pati vänarüpa-yatha tam durakkhāte dhammavinaye duppavedite aniyyänike anupasamasamvattanike asammasambuddha-ppavedite
bhinnathupe appațisarane. 21. It is noteworthy that almost all the Swetambara
Pattavalis mention the ame period. 22. It is noteworthy that the original Ms. of the Himavant
asthavirāvali is not available after its Gujarati translation; its Gujarati translation by Pnadit Hiralal Hansraj of Jamnagar, is the only base, It shows that

Page #9
Kunika and Udayi ruled for 60 years after the Nirvana of Mahavira and the Nandas ruled for 94 years there after, and accordingly Chandragupta Maurya's accession is said to be in 155 V.N.S. 23. Vikram Samvat 1987 : 137; Note that Muniji's effort to accept the period of Maurya to be 160 instea of 108, considering "muriyanamatthasayam" as "muriyanam satthasayam". is not a historical fact. 24. It should be noted that Muniji's effort to extend Sambhutivijaya;s period from 8 year to 60-years. and changing 108 year period of the Mauryas (this fact is supporte by history) to 160. years is nothing but an effort to confirm his own hypothesis. References : 1. Bhagavati (Angasuttani, Vol. 2) Ed. Muni Nathmal, Jaina Visva Bharati, Ladnun, V.S. 2031 9 : 222-229. Charpentier Jarl, The Uttaradhyayana Sutra, Introduction, Archives D'Etudes Orientales, Publiees Par J.-A. Lundelle, Vol. 18, Uppsala, 1922. 3. Eggermont, P.H.L., "The Year of Mahavira's decease". Bechert, H., The Dating of the Historical Buddha, pt. I, pp. 138-51, Gottingen. 4. Dhavalatika Samanvita Satkhandagam, Ed. Hiralal Jain, Sitabarai Luxmichandra Jaina Sahityoddharaka Fund. Amaravati, 1949.4:1:44: 132-133. 5. Dighanikaya, vol. I, III, Ed. Bhikshu Jagadish Kashyap, Bihar Govt. Publication Board, Ist. Edition, Nalanda, 1958. 6. Hemacandra, Parisistaparva, Ed. Tilak Vijaya, Jaina Dharma Prasaraka Sabha, Bhavanagar, V.S. 1968. 7. Himavanta Sthaviravali, Gujarati Trans. by Pt. Hiralal Hansraj, referred to Muni Kalyana Vijaya, Vira Nirvana Samvat aur Jaina Kala Ganana, v.s. 1987. 8. Jacobi, V. Hermann, Buddha's and Mahavira's Nirvana and D. Palitesch Vitiklung Magadhas, Jur Jener Jait - 557. Jaina Silalekha Samgraha (Il part) Compiler Vijay Murti Pandit, Manikachand Digambar Granghamala Samiti, Bombay-4, 1952.. 10. Jaiswal, Kashiprasad, Indian Antiquary, Part XL VI, 1917 reprint (1985), Svati Publication. Delhi, p. 145-153. 11. Kalpasutra, Sri Subodhikanamni Kalpasutra Tika, Ed. Vinaya, Jamnagar, 1939, 1. 12. Majumdar, R.C. Ancient India, Motilal Banarasi Dass, Varanasi, 1952. 13. Mukhtar, Jugal Kishore, Jaina Sahitya aur Itihasa para Visad Prasna, Shri Vira Sasan Samgha, Calcutta, 1965. 14. Muni Kalyan Vijaya, Vira Nirvana Samvat Aur Jaina Kala Ganana, K.V. Shastra Samgraha Samiti, Jalore, V.S. 1987. 15. Nandisutra (Sthaviravali), Ed. Madhukar Muni, Shri Agm Prakashan Samiti, Beawar, (Rajasthan). 16. Niryukti Sangraha, Ed. Vijayasen Surishvara. Harshapuspa mrit Jain Granthamala, Lakhabavala, Saurashtra, 1989. 17. Norman K.R. "Observation on the Dates of the Jaina and Buddha" in Bechert, H. The Dating of the Historical Buddha Pt. I, p. 300-312, Gottingen. 18. Painnaya Suttaim (Prathamobhaga), Ed. Muni Punya Vijaya, Shri Mahavira Jaina Vidyalaya, Bombay 1984. 19. Parikha, Rasikalal Chotelal, Gujarat no Rajakiya aura Sanskritika Itihas, Vol. 2, B.J. Institue, Ahmedabad - 9. 20. Prabandhakosa, Ed. Jina Vijayaji, Singhi Jaina Granthamala, Shantiniketan, 1935. 21. Shastri, A. Shantiraja, "Bhagavan Mahavira ke Nirvana ki Samalocana," Anekanta, Varsa - 4 Kiran - 10. 22. Smith, V.A., The Jaina Stupa & other Antiquities of Mathura, Indological Book House, Delhi. 23. Sri Kalpasutra, Ed. Manika Muni, Sobhagamal Harakavata, Ajamer, V.S. 1973. 24. Sri Pattavaliparaga Samgraha, Ed. Muni Kalyan Vijaya, K.V. Shastra Samgraha Samiti, Jalore, 1966. 25. Thanam, (Sthananga) (Angasuttani) Part I, III, Ed. Vachana Pramukha Acharya Tulasi, Jaina Vishva Bharati, Ladnun, V.S. 2031. 26. The Historical Position of Kaliki and his Identification with Yasodharman, Indian Antiquary, Vol. XLVI, July 1971, Swati Publication, Delhi 1985. 27. Tiloyapannatti, Ed. Prof. Hiralal Jain and A.N. Upadhya, Jaina Sanskriti Sanrakshaka Sangha, Solapur 1951. 28. Titthogalipainnaya (Painnayasuttaim). Ed. Muni Punya Vijaya, Mahavira Jaina Mahavidyalaya, Bombay 1984. 29. Tripathi, Ramashankara. 'Pracina Bharata Ka Itihas. 'Motilal Banarasi Dass, Delhi, 1968. 30. Uttaradhyayana, Ed. Charpentier. Archives D. Itds Orientals, Vol. 18, Upasala 1922. 31. Venkateshwara, S.V., 'The Date of Vardhaman,' Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, 1917, 32. Visesavasyakabhasya. Trans, Shah Chunnilal, Agamodaya Samiti, Bombay. 33. Vividha Gachhiya Pattavali Samgraha, part I, Ed. Muni Jina Vijayaji, Singhi Jaina Series - 53. Publ., J.H. Dave, Director, Bharatiya Vidyabhavan, Bombay - 7, 1961.