Sruta Sarita

SR No.: 001940
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Jitendra B Shah
Publisher: Shardaben Chimanbhai Educational Research Centre
Publication Year: 2001
Total Pages: 310
Language: English, Prakrit, Hindi
Classification: Book_Devnagari & Articles
File Size: 18 MB

Page 40

A NOTE ON LORD MAHAVIRA'S CLAN
In Pāli texts Nigantha Nāthaputta (or Nātaputta) and in Sanskrit Buddhist texts Nirgrantha (Nirgrantha) jñātiputra (Jñātaputra) is used for Lord Mahāvīra (see Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary). In Jaināgama texts also we have Nāyaputta, Nāyasuya, Nayaputta, Mahāvīra etc. According to the comm. of Samyuttanikāya ‘Nāta' was the name of his father but Malayasekhara says that Nāta is the name of the clan, and most of the Jaina texts and commentators are unanimous in saying that Nāta is the clan of the Ksatriyas.
Recently Muni Nathmalji has opined that Prakrit word Nāya or Näta should be sanskritized as Näga'. He may be correct to a certain extent as far as Prakrit word is concerned but when we see the word Nāta or Nätha used in Pāli, there remains no possibility of sanskritizing it as Nāga. Still we can keep this question of sanskritizing it as Nāga. Still we can keep question of sanskritizing the word Naya open and find out some solution.
In Ācārānga II we find 'Nayānam khattiyānam (116) which shows that Nāyas, were Ksatriyas. This is corroborated by Kalpasūtra (20) also.
But in Ācārānga I which is the earliest text of the Jaina Canon Lord Mahāvīra is called 'Māhana' not once but four times at the end of all the four subsections of the ch. IX wherein ascetic practices of the Lord are described 'TH fa अणुक्कन्तो माहणेण मईमया ।'
This statement may be right if we see the story in Bhagavatīsūtra (9, 33, 380) where the Lord says-aaruit HIEU 3744|| | 37651 Sang HIEVG 3T1I'.
Will it not be proper if we say that only after the introduction of the story of interchange of embryo the Lord was known as Ksatriya ? It can be assumed also that in order to validate the change of embryo this story in Bhagavati is inserted but that possibility is not there because in that case the question of relation of Trisalā should arise which is not there.