Reconsidering the date of Nirvna of Lord Mahavira

Author(s): Sagarmal Jain
Publisher: Z_Shwetambar_Sthanakvasi_Jain_Sabha_Hirak_Jayanti_Granth_012052.pdf
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/250268/1

Page #1

Reconsidering the Date of the Nirvāṇa 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 Nirvāṇa of Mahāvīra, Saka became king. (Tiloypannatti 4 : 1499; Paiņnayasuttăiñ :I part : 1984 - Titthogälīpainnayaṁ : (623). On the basis of this postulate, even today, the date of the Nirvana of Mahāvira 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 Svetāmbara 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 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 Nirvāna of Mahāvīra, 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 Mahävira and the Saka era. But this much is definite that from about 600-700 A.D., it has been a common notion that the Nirvāņa of Mahāvira 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 Mahāvīra is found, but there is no mention of the chronology of the Acāryas : therefore, it is difficult to fix a date of the Nirvāṇa of Mahāvira on the basis of these texts. In the Kalpasūtra (Sūtra-147, p. 145) only this much is mentioned that now 980 years (according to another version 993 years) have passed since the Vira Nirvāna. This fact makes only this much clear that after 980 or 993 years of Vira Nirvāņa, Ācārya Devarddhigani Kșamāśramana finally edited this last exposition of the present Canon. Similarly, in Sthānănga (7 : 41), Bhagavatisūtra (9:222-229) and Avasyaka Niryukti (778783), alongwith the reference to Nihnavas, a reference to after how much time of Mahăvira'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 Mahavira.
There have been differences of opinion from the very beginning on the date of Nirvana of Mahävira. 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 Bhagavān attained salvation,
Śaka became the king. iii. 14793 years after Vira Bhagavān attained salvation,
Śaka 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 Satkhandāgama, there are three different statements as to after how many years of the Nirvana of Mahävira, Saka (Sälivāhana 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 Svetāmbara 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 Nirvāṇa, whereas according to the second it was composed 993 years after the event.
It is significant also to note that in the Svtâmbara 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 Titthogāli Paiņnaya only this much has been mentioned that (after Vira Nirvāṇa) the region of the Mauryas started 60 years after the Palakas and 155 years after the Nandas (Paiņnayasuttaim I part: 1984, Titthogāli Painnayar : 621), whereas according to the second opinion of Hemacandra (Parisişta Parva : 8 339), he ascended the throne 155 years after Vira Nirvāna. Similarly, in Laghuposälik Pattāvali (p. 37) it is written that 155 years after Vira Nirvāna Candragupta Maurya ascended the throne. Also, in Nagapuriya Tapägaccha
cvent.

Page #2

Reconsidering the Date of the Nirvana of Lord Mahavira
107
Pattāvali (p. 48) it is written that 155 years after the Vira Nirvāņa Candragupta became the king, (Virät 155 varșe Candraguptonrpah). According to this pastāvali, 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 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 Mahävira. It is clear from these discussions that there has been a controversy regarding the date of the Nirvāņa of Mahāvira even in ancient times.
Since the old internal evidences regarding the date of the Nirvana of Mahāvīra were not strong, the Western scholars on the basis of the external evidences alone, tried to ascertain the date of the Nirvāṇa of Mahāvira; 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 Mahāvīra's Nirvana :
1. Hermann Jacobio (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 Vīra Nirvāṇa Candragupta Maurya ascended the throne, and he ascertained the date of Mahāvira's Nirvāna on the basis of this reference only.
2. J. Charpentier", 467 B.C., He followed the opinion of Hemacandra and ascertained that the date of Nirvana of Mahāvīra 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 Nirvāna of Mahāvira 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 Mahāvīra's Nirvāna. But at some other places he has considered 546 B.C. to be the date of Mahāvīra's Nirvāna, adding 18 years between Vikarma's birth and his accession to the throne (470+18) he fixes the date of Mahāvīra's Nirvāna 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.14, 528 B.C. On the basis of various arguments, he has confirmed the traditional theory.
7. Muni Sri Kalyana Vijaya.'S, 528 B.C., While confirming the traditional theory, he has tried to remove the inconsistencies of the theory.
8. Prof. P.H.L. Eggermont.", 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 Mahāvira 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 Sangha, 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's, About 400 B.C., Considering Bhadrabähu 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 Mahāvīra, 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, 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 Āgamas are mostly silent about Buddha's Life-history, but there are ample references to the contemporary presence of Mahāvira 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 Dīghanikāya (Samññaphalasutta: 2:1:7) in which Ajätasatru meets many of his contemporary religious heads. In this reference, the chief minister of Ajātaśatru talks abour Nirgrantha Jñätsputra 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 Tīrtharkara, he is admired by many and respectable gentleman. He has been a long wandering mendicant (Parivrājaka) and is middle-aged". It can be derived from this statement that at the time of

Page #3

108
Aspects of Jainology Volume VI
Ajātaśatru's accession to the throne Mahavira's age must be about 50 years, because his Nirvāṇa is supposed to have taken place in the 22nd year of Ajätaśatru 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 Nirvăņa Samvat aur Jaina Kala Gananā, pp. 4-5). So far as Buddha's case is concerned, he attained his Nirvana in the 8th year of Ajātaśatru's accession to the throne. This is the hypothesis of Buddhist writers. This hypothesis given rise to two facts. Firstly, when Mahävira was 50 years old, Buddha was 72 (80-8), i.e. Buddha was 22 years older than Mahāvira. Secondly, Mahavira's Nirvāṇa took place 14 years after Buddha's Nirvāṇa (22-8-14). It is worth mentioning here, that in the reference occuring in the Dīghanikāya (Samaññaphalasutta : 2:2 : 8), where Nirgrantha Jñāt,putra 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 Ajätaśatru Kunika and Buddha's Nirvana took place in the 8th year of the rule of Ajātaśatru.
But contrary to the above-mentioned fact one finds another information in the Dighanikaya that Mahavira has attained Nirvāņa during Buddha's life-time. The reference from the Dīghanikāya is as follows (Pasādikasutta : 6:1 : 1)20
"I heard this once that the Lord was residing in a palace built in the mango orchard of the Sākyas known as Vedhaññā in sākya (country).
At that time Nigantha Nātaputta (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 Nigarthas."
The house-holder disciples of the Nigantha Nätaputta, wearing white dresses, also were getting indifferent,
distressed and alienated from the Dharma of Nigantha which was not expressed properly (durākhyāta), not properly investigated (duspravedita), unable to redeem (anairyāika), unable to give peace (ana-upasama-Sarvartanika), not verified by any enlightened (a-Samyak. Sambuddhapravedita) without foundation = a different stüpa and without a shelter."
Thus, we see that in the Tripitaka literature, on the one hand where Mahāvira has been described as middleaged, on the otherhand, there is an information about the death of Mahāvira during the life-time of Buddha. Since, according to the sources based on Jaina literature, Mahāvīra 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 Nirvāņa Saṁvat aur Jaina Kala Gananā, 1987, p. 12) has called the theory of Mahāvīra Nirvana during the life-time of Buddha as a mistaken concept. He maintains that the incident of Mahāvīra'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 Mahāvira, and his other Sramana disciples was linked with this rumour, the present reference from the Dīghanikāya about the dath of Mahāvira 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 Tejoleśyā, hurled upon him by agitated and acutely jealous Makkhaligosāla after dispute.
Buddha's Nirvana must have taken place one year and few months after the rumour abour Mahāvira's death, therefore, Buddha must have attained Nirvāņa 14 years, 5 months and 15 days before Mahavira's Nirvăna.
Since Buddha's Nirvana took place in the 8th year of Ajātaśatru Kunika's accession to the throne, Mahavira's Nirvāna 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 Gananā, p. 4). Therefore, it is certain that Mahavira's Nirvana took place 14 years after the Nirvāna of Buddha. The fixation of the date of Buddha's Nirvana would definitely influence the date of Mahāvira'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
109
While determining the date of Nirvana of Mahavira, we would have to keep in our mind that the contemporaneity of Ācārya Bhadrabāhu and Sthūlibhadra with Mahāpadma Nanda and Chandragupta Maurya; of Ācārya Suhasti with Samprati; of Arya Mañkșu (Mangu), Arya Nandila, Arya Nagahasti, Arya Viddha and Arya Krsna with the period mentioned in their inscriptions and of Arya Devarddhigani kşamāśramana 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 Bhadrabāhu and Sthūlibhadra also. It is an undisputed fact that Chandragupta had wrested power from the Nandas and that Sthūlibhadra was the son of Sakdäla, 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 Bhadrabāhu 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 (Titthogālipainnayan: 787: Painnayasuttaim 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 Bhadrabāhu or Sthūlibhadra, Sambhūtivijaya was the head, because only in that particular assembly it was decided that Bhadrabahu will make Sthūlibhadra to study the Purva- texts. 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 Acārya Bhadrabahu remained Ācārya from Vira Nirvāṇa 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 Bhadrabāhu had already died 45 years before Chandragupta Maurya's accession. On this basis Sthūlibhadra 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 Sthavirävah (Muni Kalyana Vijaya: Vikram Tra 1987:p.
178)22 and Parisista Parva (8 : 339) of Ācārya Hemacandra also. On this basis only the contemporaneity of Bhadrabāhu and Sthūlibhadra with Chandragupta Maurya can be also proved. Almost all the Pattavaliss accept the period of Bhadrabāhu as an Ācārya to be 156-170 V.S. (Pattāvali Parāga Samgraha, p. 166; Vividhagacchiya Pattávali Sarngraha : 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 Bhadrabāhu was the last Śrutakevali, according to the Digambara tradition his year of demise must be the year 162 of the Vira Nirvāṇa Samvat. Thus, despite the fact that there is a difference of 8 years regarding the period of demise of Bhadrabāhu as accepted by the two traditions, the contemporaneity of Bhadrabāhu and Chandragupta Maurya is fully justified. Muni Shri Kalyana Vijaya (Sri Pattāvali Parāga Saṁgraha: 1966:52; Vīra Nirvana Saṁvat aur Jaina Kala Gananā : p. 137)23, in order to prove the contemporaneity of Bhadrabāhu and Chandragupta Maurya, accepted the period of Sambhūtivijaya as an Acārya 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 Bhadrabāhu and Chandragupta Maurya. But it is only his imagination (ViraNirvāna Samvat aur Jaina Käla Gananā-p. 137 & Pattāvali Parāga Saṁgraha - p. 52); there is no authentic proof available. All the Svetămbara Pattāvalis accept the date of the demise of Bhadrabāhu 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. Bhadrabāhu was only the last of the 14 Pürvadharas. Thus, according to both of the traditions - Svetāmbara and Digambara, the date of demise of Bhadrabāhu stands as 170 and 162 of V.N.S. respectively.
On the basis of this fact, the contemporaneity of Bhadrabāhu and Sthülibhadra with the last Nanda and Chandragupta Maurya can be proved only if the date of Nirvāṇa of Mahāvira 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 Titthogāli Painnayam (783-794) also the contemporaneity of Sthūlibhadra 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 Mahāvira as 467 B.C. Himvanta Sthavirävalt also mentions that Chandragupta was enthro- in 155 years after the l'ha

Page #5

110
Aspects of Jainology Volume VI
Nirvāna and that Vikramārka lived 410 years after the Vira Nirvāna (see Vira Nirvāna Samvat aur Jaina Kala-Gananā, p. 177). This also confirms the theory of accepting the date of Mahävira'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)2 Accroding to the Jaina Patļāvalis, the period of Arya Suhasti as Yuga Pradhāna Ācārya 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 Acārya 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 Ārya 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 Pattavalis, 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 Vīra 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., Sthūlibhadra 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 Pattāvalis, the contemporaneity of Arya Suhasti and Samprati is possible only by accepting the date of Vira Nirvāna as 467 B.C. This contemporaneity is not possible if the date of the Mahāvīra Nirvāna 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 Nirvāņa of Mahāvira.
Now we shall consider the date of the Nirvāṇa 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 Výddha, mentioned in Mathură inscriptions (see Jaina Silalekha Saṁgraha, articles 41, 54, 55, 56, 57 and 63) first three are found in Nandisutra Sthavirāvali (Gatha: 27-29) and remaining four names are found in Kalpasūtra. According to the Pattāvalis, the period of Arya Mangu as a Yugapradhāna Ācārya is considered to be in between 451 and 470 V.N.S. (Vira Nirvāna Samvat aur Jaina Kāla Garianā, p. 112). On acceptiong the date of the Vira Nirvana Sarvat aur Jaina Käla Garană, p. 112). On accepting the date of the Vira Nirvāṇa 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 Pattāvalis 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.
In several Pattāvalis, even the name of Arya Mangu, is not mentioned. Therefore, the theories, concerning his period, based on the Patļāvalis are not authentic. Moreover, the only one Pattāvali called Nandisutra Sthavirāvali, which mentions Arya Mangu, does not indicate the teacher-taught (Guru-fișya) tradition. Therefore, there are chances of the omission of certain names which has been confirmed by Muni Kalyana Vijayaji himself (Vira Nirvāṇa samvat aur Jaina kāla Gananā, pp. 121 & 131). Thus it is not possible to establish the date of the Mahāvīra'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 Mahāvira's Nirvāṇa 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 Nirvāna of Lord Mahavira
111
of Arya Mangu.
So far as Arya Nandil is concerned, we find the reference to his name also in the Nandísūtra. In the Nandisutra Sthavirāvali (Gātha, 27-29), his name appears before Arya Nägahasti and after Arya Mangu. There is an inscription of Nandika (Nandil) of the Saka Samvat 32 in the inscriptions of Mathură (sce Jaina Šilālekha 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 Saṁgraha, article No. 67). Arya Nandil is referred to also in the Prabandhakośa and in some ancient Pattāvalis, but since at no place there is any reference to his period, it is not possible to establish the date of the Nirvana of Mahāvira on the basis fo this inscriptional evidence.
Now let us consider Nägahasti. Usually in all the Pattāvalis, the date of the demise of Arya Vajra, has been considered as 584 V.N.S. After Arya Vajra, Arya Raksita remained the Yuga Pradhāna Acārya 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 Vicāraśreni, the period of Arya Nāgahasti as the Yuga Pradhana has been accepted as continuing for 69 years, i.e. Nāgahasti was the Yuga Pradhana from 621 to 690 V.N.S. (Vira Nirvana Samvat aur Jaina Kala Gananā, p. 106 note). If Hastahasti of the Mathura inscription is Nägahasti, then he is also referred to as the guru of Mäghahasti in the inscription of the Saka Samvat 54, which establishes him of before 131 A.D.
It we accept the date of the Vīra Nirvāna 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 Mäghahasti. 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-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 Pastāvalis tally the inscriptional evidences. On this basis his tenure of Yuga Pradhanaship extends from 16 to 85 of the Saka Era, Mäghahasti, one of his disciples was able to perform the Murti-Pratisthä by his sermons. Although common sense would hardly accept it as logical that his Yuga Pradhanaship extended for 69 years, yet because of
the fact that it considers the information given in the Pațțävalis to be correct, this inscriptional evidence about Nägahasti supports the date of Vīra Nirvāṇa as 527 B.C.
Again, in one of the inscriptional sketches of Mathura, Arya Krsna with that Ārya Krsna mentioned after Sivabhūti in Kalpasūtra Sthaviravali (last part 4 :1), then his period on the basis of the Pattāvalis and Viseșāvasyakabhāsya (Gātha : 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 Sivabhūti the Boţika, 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 Ārya 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 Saṁgraha: article no. 56 & 59), the name of Arya Vrddhahasti 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 Vrddha of the Kalpasūtra Sthavirāvali and the Vrddhadeva of the Pattāvalis (Vividha Gacchiya Pattāvali Sangraha : p. 17), then according to the Pattāvalis, he was led to perform Mūrti Pratiștha in Karnātaka 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 Nirvāna year, the equation between this inscriptional evidence and the Patļāvali 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 Viddha occupies the 25th place in Pattāvali. 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 Mahāvira's Nirvāna 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 (Srikalpasūtra : 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.e. 526 A.D., then it is proved that Mahāvīra's Nirvāna must have taken place in 993-526=467 B.C.
Thus atleast three of the six inscriptional evidences prove that the Nirvāņa of Mahāvira took place in 467 B.C. Whereas the two evidences may prove 527 B.C. as the period of Vira Nirvāna. 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 Ācāryas given in the Pattävali 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 Mahāvira'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 Nirvāna of Mahāvira took place.
savathi usabhapuram seyaviyā mihilam ullugatiram. purimantaranji dasapura rahavirapuram ca nagaraim (781) coddasa solasa vāsā cauddasavïsuttara ya donni saya. atthāvisā ya duve pañceva sayā u coyala. (782) panca saya calasiya chacceva sayā nāvottară hoti.
nānupattiya duve uppanna vinavveue sesä. (783) 3. Virajine siddhigade causadaigisatthivāsaparimāņe.
kālammi adikkante uppanno ettha sakarão. (461) ahavā vire siddhe sahassanavakammi sagasayabbhahie. panasidimmi yatīde panamāse (Y. 9785, M5) sakanio jādo. 1497. pāthāntaram. coddasasahassasagasayatenaudivāsakālavicchede. (19793) víresarasiddhido uppanno ahavā. 1498. pāthāntaram. nivvāne virajine chaväsasadesu pañcavarisesu. panamāsesu (Y. 605, M.5) gadesu sanjādo saganio ahavä. 1499. pāthārtaram.
Tiloyapannatti - section 4, 1496 - 1499. 4. avanidesu pañcamāsähiyapañcuttarachassadaväsäni
havanti aiso virajinindanivvāņagaddivāsädo jāva sagakālassa adi hodi tăvadiyakalo. kudo? (605) edamhi käle saganarindakalammi pakkhitte vaddamanajinanivvudakālāgamānädo. vuttam ca-pañca ya masa pañcaya vāsä сhacceva hoti väsasaya, sagakälena ya sahiya thaveyavvo tado räsi (41) anne ke vi äiriyä сoddasasahassa - sattasad - tinaudivāsesu jinanivvanadiņādo aikkantesu saganarinduppattim bhananti (14793) vuttam ca-gutti-payattha-bhayāim coddasarayaņāi samaikantaim. pariņivvude jininde to rajja saganaribdassa. (42) anne ke vi äiriyā evam bhananti. tam jaha-sattasahassa navasaya pañcāņaudivarisesu pañcamāsāhiesu vaddhmānajinanivvudadinādo aikkartesu saganarindarajjuppatti jādo ti, ettha gāhāsattasahassā navasada pañcānaudi sampañcamāsa ya. aikantā vāsānam jaiyä taiyä saguppatti : (43)
(1995) edesu tisu ekkeņa hodavvam na tinnamuvadesāņa saccattam, annonnavirohado tado janiya vattavvam. --Dhavalā tikā saman vita Sātkhandägama, Khanda 4,
Bhaga 1, Pustak 9, p. 132-133 (section 4/1/44) 5. samanassa bhagavao Mahävirassa Jäva savvadukkhapa
hiņassa navaväsa sayaiṁ vikantäim dasamassa väsasayassa ayam asiime samvacchare kale gacchai,
Notes: 1. a. Nivvāne Vira jine chavväsasadesu pañcavarisesuń.
Panamāsesu gadesum sarjādo saganio ahavā. b. pañca ya māsā pañca ya väsä сhacceva
hontivāsasayā pariņivvuassărihato so uppanno sago rämā.
Titthogäli Paiņnayam, 623 2. bahuraya paesa avvattasamucchādugatiga abaddhiya
ceva. satte-e ninhaga khalu titthami u vaddhamänassa, (778) bahuraya jamälipabhavä jivapaesa ya tisaguttao avvattā asadhao samuccheyä samittão. (779). gangão dokiriyä сhaluga teräsiyāņa uppatti. theräya gotthamähila putthamabaddham parūvinti. (780)

Page #8
Reconsidering the Date of the Nirvana of Lord Mahavira 113 vayanantare puna ayam tenaue samvacchare kalam gacchai iha disai. Sri Kalpasutra 147, p. 145. 6. palagaranno sasthi panapannasayam viyana nardanas maruyanam atthasayam tisa puna pusamitanam, --Titthogali painnayam (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 patlavali (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 the reference of the Parisistaparvaof 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 Samvat. 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 : 14! 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. ajjataropikho rajamacco rajanar magadham ajatasatt um vedehiputtam etadavoca "ayam, deva, nigantho nataputto sanghi ceva gani ca ganacariyo ca, nato, yasassi, titthakaro, sadhusammato bahujanassa, rattanna, cirapabbajito, addhagato, vayoanuppatto. Digha nikaya, Samannaphalasutta. 2/1/7. 20. evam me sutam. ekam samayam bhagava sakkesu viharati vedhanna nama sakya tesam ambavane pasade. tena kho pana samayena nigantho nataputto pavayam adhunakalarikato hoti. tassa kalarkiriyaya bhinna nigantha dvedhikajata bhandanajata kalahajata vivadapanna annamannam mukhasattihi vitudanta viharanti-" na tvam imam dhammavinayam ajanasi, aham iman dhammavinayam ajanami, kim tvalm imam dhammavinayam ajanissasi? micchapatipanno tvamasi, ahamasmi sammapatipanno. Sahitam me, asahitam te. purevacaniyam paccha avaca pacchavacaniyam pure avacea. Adhicinnam 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-yaina 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. 1, 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. 9. Jaina silalekha Samgraha (II 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, I. 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 Samgraha, 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. Thanah, (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 Sangraha, part I, Ed. Muni Jina Vijayaji, Singhi Jaina Series - 53. Publ., J.H. Dave, Director, Bharatiya Vidyabhavan, Bombay - 7, 1961.