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 Nirvana of Lord Mahavira 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 Mahavira, Saka became king. (Tiloypannatti 4 : 1499; Painnayasuttaim :I part: 1984 - Titthogalipainnayam: (623). On the basis of this postulate, even today, the date of the Nirvana of Mahavira 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 Svetambara sect, have also held 527 B.C. to be the year of the Vira Nirvana. From about the 7th century A.D., with a few exceptions, this date has gained recognition. In the Svetambara tradition, for the first time in the Prakraka entitled "Titthogali,' (painnayasuttaim : I part : 1984 : Titthogali 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 Mahavira took place in the year 605 before Saka. Prior to it, in the Sthaviravali of Kalpasutra 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 Acaryas : therefore, it is difficult to fix a date of the Nirvana of Mahavira on the basis of these texts. In the Kalpasutra (Sutra-147, p. 145) only this much is mentioned that now 980 years (according to another version 993 years) have passed since the Vira Nirvana. This fact makes only this much clear that after 980 or 993 years of Vira Nirvana, Acarya Devarddhigani Ksamasramana finally edited this last exposition of the present Canon. Similarly, in Sthananga (7 : 41), Bhagavatisutra (9:222-229) and Avasyaka Niryukti (778- 783), alongwith the reference to Nihnavas, a reference to after how much time of Mahavira's life-time and his Nirvana 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 Mahavira. There have been differences of opinion from the very beginning on the date of Nirvana 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 Nirvana 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 Bhagavan attained salvation, Saka became the king. iii. 14793 years after Vira Bhagavan attained salvation, Saka became the king. iv. 605 years and 5 months after Vira Jina attained salvation, Saka became the king. Besides this, in Dhavala; (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 Nirvana. ii. 14793 years after Vira Nirvana. iii. 7995 years and 5 months after Vira Nirvana. In Svetambara tradition there are two clear opinions as to how much time after the Nirvana of Lord Mahavira Devarddhi's last assembly on Agama was held. According to the first opinion, it was composed 980 years after the Vira Nirvana, whereas according to the second it was composed 993 years after the event. It is significant also to note that in the Sytambara 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 Nirvana. However, in Titthogali Painnaya only this much has been mentioned that (after Vira Nirvana) the region of the Mauryas started 60 years after the Palakas and 155 years after the Nandas (Painnayasuttaim I part: 1984, Titthogali 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 Pattavali (p. 37) it is written that 155 years after Vira Nirvana Candragupta Maurya ascended the throne. Also, in Nagapuriya Tapagaccha

Page #2
Reconsidering the Date of the Nirvana of Lord Mahavira 107 10 Patlavali (p. 48) it is written that 155 years after the Vira Nirvana Candragupta became the king, (Virat 155 varse Candragupton pah). According to this Pattavali, the reign of Mauryan dynasty ended after 278 years of Vira Nirvana. Now the period of 189 B.C. as the end of the Mauryan dynasty can be justified only when the Vira Nirvana 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 Pusyamitra. This second theory, presented by Hemacandra, is a hindrance in ascertaining the year 527 B.C. to be the year of the Nirvana of Mahavira. It is clear from these discussions that there has been a controversy regarding the date of the Nirvana of Mahavira even in ancient times. Since the old internal evidences regarding the date of the Nirvana of Mahavira were not strong, the Western scholars on the basis of the external evidences alone, tried to ascertain the date of the Nirvana of Mahavira; 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 Mahavira's Nirvana : 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 Mahavira's Nirvana 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 Mahavira 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 Nirvana 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 Nirvana. 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 Mahavira's Nirvana 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 Tisyagupta in the Jaina tradition, which took place during the life time of Mahavira in 16th year of his emancipation. With the incident of Samghabheda and the act of drying up of the Bodhi tree by Tisyaraksita in the Buddha Samgha, 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 Acaryas as 75 years, at an average of 15 years each, and thus fixed the date of Mahavira's Nirvana as 320+75 = 395 B.C. In order to determine the date of the Nirvana 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 Mahavira, the names of Lord Buddha, Bimbisara-Srenika and Ajatasatru 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 Mahavira 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 Dighanikaya (Samnnaphalasutta : 2:1: 7)' in which Ajatasatru meets many of his contemporary religious heads. In this reference, the chief minister of Ajatasatru talks abour Nirgrantha Jnatnputra like this: "Master, this Nirgranta Jnatiputra, is the master of the sect as well as the monastery, teacher of the sect, a scholar, and a renowned Tirthankara, he is admired by many and respectable gentleman. He has been a long wandering mendicant (Parivrajaka) and is middle-aged". It can be derived from this statement that at the time of

Page #3
108 Aspects of Jainology Volume VI Ajatasatru'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 Kala Ganana, pp. 4-5). So far as Buddha's case is concerned, he attained his Nirvana in the 8th year of Ajatasatru'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, Mahavira'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 Dighanikaya (Samannaphalasutta : 2 2 8), where Nirgrantha Jnatrrputra 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 Ajatasatru Kunika and Buddha's Nirvana took place in the 8th year of the rule of Ajatasatru. But contrary to the above-mentioned fact one finds another information in the Dighanikaya that Mahavira has attained Nirvana during Buddha's life-time. The reference from the Dighanikaya is as follows (Pasadikasutta: 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 Vedhanna in Sakya (country). At that time Nigantha Nataputta (Tirthankara Mahavira) had recently died at Pava. 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 (durakhyata), not properly investigated (duspravedita), unable to redeem (anairyaika), 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 Mahavira 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 Kala Ganana, 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 Makkhaligosala, a former disciple of Mahavira, and his other Sramana 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 Tejolesya, hurled upon him by agitated and acutely jealous Makkhaligosala after dispute. Buddha's Nirvana 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 Ajatasatru Kunika's accession to the throne, Mahavira's Nirvana 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 Kala Ganana, 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 Mahavira, we would have to keep in our mind that the contemporaneity of Acarya Bhadrabahu and Sthulibhadra with Mahapadma Nanda and Chandragupta Maurya; of Acarya Suhasti with Samprati; of Arya Manksu (Mangu), Arya Nandila, Arya Nagahasti, Arya Vrddha and Arya Krsna with the period mentioned in their inscriptions and of Arya Devarddhigani ksamasramana 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 Sakdala, the minister of the last Nanda. Therefore, Sthulibhadra 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 Sthulibhadra were contemporary of Chandragupta. The main reason behind Sthulibhadra's renunciation could be Mahapadma Nanda's (the last ruler of the Nanda dynasty) misbehaviour with his father and ultimately his merciless assassination (Titthogalipainnayam: 787: Painnayasuttaim I part: 1984). Moreover, Sthulibhadra was initiated by Sambhutivijaya and not by Bhadrabahu. At the time of first assembly on composition of Agama held at Pataliputra, instead of Bhadrabahu or Sthulibhadra, Sambhutivijaya 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 Acarya 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 Sthaviravali (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. (Pattavali Paraga Samgraha, p. 166; Vividhagacchiya Pattavali Samgraha: I part: 1961 pp. 15, 37, 48). In Digambara tradition also the total period of the three Kevalis and the five Srutakevalis has been accepted as 162 years. Since Bhadrabahu was the last Srutakevali, 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 (Sri Pattavali Paraga Samgraha: 1966: 52; Vira Nirvana Samvat aur Jaina Kala Ganana: p. 137)23, in order to prove the contemporaneity of Bhadrabahu and Chandragupta Maurya, accepted the period of Sambhutivijaya 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 Kala Ganana - p. 137 & Pattavali Paraga Samgraha - p. 52)24; there is no authentic proof available. All the Svetambara Pattavalis accept the date of the demise of Bhadrabahu to be the year 170 V.N.S. Also, in Titthogali 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 - Svetambara 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 Mahavira 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 Sthulibhadra 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 Sthaviravalt also mentions that Chandragupta was enthro-in 155 years after the Vi

Page #5
110 Aspects of Jainology Volume VI Nirvana and that Vikramarka lived 410 years after the Vira Nirvana (see Vira Nirvana Sarvat aur Jaina Kala-Ganana, p. 177). This also confirms the theory of accepting the date of Mahavira's Nirvana 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 Pattavalis, the period of Arya Suhasti as Yuga Pradhana Acarya was 245-291 V.N.S. If we base our calculation on the assumption that Vira Nirvana took place in 527 B.C., we will have to accept that Arya Suhasti became the Yuga Pradhana Acarya 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 Acarya 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 Pradhana Acarya of the Samgha. It is remarkable that Arya Suhasti was initiated by Sthulibhadra. According to the Pattavalis, Sthulibhadra 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 Sthulibhadra had already been initiated. If, according to the Pattavalis, 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 Sthulibhadra himself because 6 years before he got initiated, in 215 V.N.S., Sthulibhadra 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 Nirvana as 467 B.C. This contemporaneity is not possible if the date of the Mahavira 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 Bhadrabahu and Sthulibhadra with Mahapadma 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 Mahavira. Now we shall consider the date of the Nirvana of Mahavira also on the basis of some of the inscriptions. Out of five names - Arya Mangu, Arya Nandil, Arya Nagahasti, Arya Krsna and Arya VIddha, mentioned in Mathura inscriptions (see Jaina Silalekha Samgraha, articles 41, 54, 55, 56, 57 and 63) first three are found in Nandisutra Sthaviravali (Gatha: 27-29) and remaining four names are found in Kalpasutra. According to the Pattavalis, the period of Arya Mangu as a Yugapradhana Acarya 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 Garana, 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 (Haviska 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 Pattavali 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 kala Ganana, pp. 121 & 131). Thus it is not possible to establish the date of the Mahavira'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 Pattavalis 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 Sthaviravali (Gatha, 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 Silalekha Samgraha, article No. 41); in another inscription of the Saka Samvat 93, the name is not clear, only 'Nadi is mentioned there. (see Jaina Silalekha Samgraha, article No. 67). Arya Nandil is referred to also in the Prabandhakosa and in some ancient Pattavalis, 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 Pattavalis, 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, Pusyamitra for 20 years and Vajrasena for 3 years, i.e. Vajrasena died in the year 620 V.N.S. In Merutunga's Vicarasreni, 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 Ganana, p. 106 note). If Hastahasti of the Mathura inscription is Nagahasti, then he is also referred to as the guru of Maghahasti in the inscription of the Saka Samvat 54, which establishes him of before 131 A.D. It we accept the date of the Vira Nirvana 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 Murti-Pratistha. But if, on the basis of the traditional concept, we accept the Vira Nirvana year to be before 605 of the Saka Era or 52 B.C., then the references made in the Pattavalis tally the inscriptional evidences. On this basis his tenure of Yuga Pradhanaship extends from 16 to 85 of the Saka 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 Pattavalis to be correct, this inscriptional evidence about Nagahasti supports the date of Vira Nirvana as 527 B.C. Again, in one of the inscriptional sketches of Mathura, Arya Krsna with that Arya Krsna mentioned after Sivabhuti in Kalpasutra Sthaviravali (last part 4 :1), then his period on the basis of the Pattavalis and Visesavasyakabhasya (Gatha: 2552-2553), could be established around 609. V.N.S., because as a result of the dispute over clothes between the same Arya Krsna and Sivabhuti 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 Krsna is supposed to be as 609-467-142 A.D. This inscriptional sketch belongs to 95+78=173 A.D. Since Arya Krsna 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 Silalekha Samgraha: article no. 56 & 59), the name of Arya Vrddhahasti is related with two inscriptions. One is from Saka Era 60 (Huviska 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 Vrddha of the Kalpasutra Sthaviravali and the Vrddhadeva of the Pattavalis (Vividha Gacchiya Pattavali Samgraha: p. 17), then according to the Pattavalis, he was led to perform Murti Pratistha 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 Vrddha occupies the 25th place in Pattavali. 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 Kalpasutra was recited before a congregation at Anandpur (Vadanagar) in order to console the grieved King Dhruvasena on his son's death (Srikalpasutra: 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 Mahavira 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 Pattavali 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 Pattavali 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. Nivvane Virajine chavvasasadesu pancavarisesum. Panamasesu gadesum sanjado saganio ahava. b. panca ya masa panca ya vasa chacceva hontivasasaya parinivvuassarihato so uppanno sago rama. Titthogali Painnayam, 623 2. bahuraya paesa avvattasamucchadugatiga abaddhiya ceva. satte-e ninhaga khalu titthami u vaddhamanassa, (778) bahuraya jamalipabhava jivapaesa ya tisaguttao avvatta asadhao Samuccheya samittao. (779). gangao dokiriya chaluga terasiyana uppatti. theraya gotthamahila putthamabaddham paruvinti. (780) savatthi usabhapuram seyaviya mihilam ullugatiram. purimantaranji dasapura rahavirapuram ca nagaraim (781) coddasa solasa vasa cauddasavisuttara ya donni saya. atthavisa ya duve panceva saya u coyala. (782) panca saya calasiya chacceva saya navottara hoti. nanupattiya duve uppanna vinavveue sesa. (783) 3. Virajine siddhigade causadaigisatthivasaparimane. kalammi adikkante uppanno ettha sakarao. (461) ahava vire siddhe sahassanavakammi sagasayabbhahie. panasidimmi yatide panamase (Y. 9785, M5) sakanio jado. 1497. pathantaran. coddasasahassasagasayatenaudivasakalavicchede. (19793) viresarasiddhido uppanno ahava. 1498. pathantaram nivvane virajine chavasasadesu pancavarisesu. panamasesu (Y. 605, M.5) gadesu sanjado saganio ahava, 1499. pathantaram. Tiloyapannatti - section 4, 1496 1499. 4. avanidesu pancamasahiyapancuttarachassadavasani havanti aiso virajinindanivvanagaddivasado java sagakalassa adi hodi tavadiyakalo, kudo? (605) edamhi kale saganarindakalammi pakkhitte vaddamanajinanivvudakalagamanado. vuttam ca-panca ya masa pancaya vasa chacceva hoti vasasaya. sagakalena ya sahiya thaveyavvo tado rasi (41) anne ke vi airiya coddasasahassa - sattasad-tinaudivasesu jinanivvanadinado aikkantesu saganarinduppattim bhananti (14793) vuttam ca-gutti-payattha-bhayaim coddasarayanai samaikantaim. parinivvude jininde to rajja saganaribdassa. (42) anne ke vi airiya evam bhananti. tam jaha-sattasahassa navasaya pancanaudivarisesu pancamasahiesu vaddhmanajinanivvudadinado aikkantesu saganarindarajjuppatti jado ti, ettha gaha sattasahassa navasada pancanaudi sampancamasa ya. aikanta vasanam jaiya taiya saguppatti: (43) (7995) edesu tisu ekkena hodavvam na tinnamuvadesana saccattam, annonnavirohado tado janiya vattavvam. --Dhavala tika samanvita Satkhandagama, Khanda 4, Bhaga 1, Pustak 9, p. 132-133 (section 4/1/44) 5. samanassa bhagavao Mahavirassa Java savvadukkhapahinassa navavasa sayaim vikantaim dasamassa vasasayassa ayam asiime samvacchare kale gacchai,

Page #8
Reconsidering the Date of the Nirvana of Lord Mahavira 113 vayanantare puna ayam tenaue sarnvacchare kalar gacchai iha disai. Sri Kalpasutra 147, p. 145. 6. palagaranno sathi panapannasayam viyana nandanam maruyana athasayam tisa puna pusamitanam. -- Titthogali painnayar (Painnaya Suttaim) 621 When 60 pakaja + 155 Nandavansa = 215 years had passed, the rule of the Maurya dynasty began. 7. a. evem ca Srimahavira mulervarsasate, pancapanca sadadhike candragupto abhavannspana. -- Parisistaparva-Hemacandra, sarga 8/339. b. Laghuposalika pattavali, Nagapuriyatapagaccha pattavali (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 Mahavira took place 155 years before Chandragupta Maurya. 11. Shastri, A. Shantiraj: Anekanta 1941, Vol. 4, No. 10: He considered the saka Samvat to be the Vikram Samvat and accepted that 605 years before the Vikram Samvat Mahavira 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 Mahavira. 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 Kalaganana, 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 Tisyagupta which took place during the 16th year of the attainment of Lord Mahavira 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 rajamacco rajanar magadham ajatasatt um vedehiputtar etadavoca "ayam, deva, nigantho nataputto sanghi ceva gani ca ganacariyo ca, fato, yasassi, titthakaro, sadhusammato bahujanassa, rattannu, cirapabbajito, addhagato, vayoanuppatto. Digha nikaya, Samannaphalasutta. 2/17, 20. evar me sutam. ekam samayam bhagava sakkesu viharati vedhanna nama sakya tesar ambavane pasade. tena kho pana samayena nigantho nataputto pavayam adhunakalankato hoti. tassa kalankiriyaya bhinna nigantha dvedhikajata bhandanajata kalahajata vivadapanna annamannar mukhasattihi vitudanta viharanti." na tvam imam dhammavinayam ajanasi, aham imam dhammavinayarn ajanami, kim tvalm imam dhammavinayam ajanissasi? micchapatipanno tvamasi, ahamasmi sammapatipanno. Sahitam me, asahitam te. purevacaniyam paccha avaca pacchavacaniyam pure avacea. Adhicinnar te viparavattam aropito te vado, niggahito tvamasi. cara vadappamokkhaya, nibbethehi va sace pashosi'ti. vadho yeva kho mannya niganthesu nataputtiyesu vattati. ye pi niganthassa nataputtassa savaka gihi odatavasana te pi niganthesu nataputtiyesu nibbinnarupa virattarupa pati vanarupa-yatha tam durakkhate dhammavinaye duppavedite aniyyanike anupasamasamvattanike asammasambuddha-ppavedite bhinnathupe appatisarane. 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 asthaviravali 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.