Jainism in North India

SR No.: 011067
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Chimanlal J Shah
Publisher: Longmans Green and Compny London
Publication Year: 1932
Total Pages: 66
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 3 MB

Page 67

JAINISM IN NORTH INDIA that the inscription of Kharavela was dated in the year 165 of the Maurya era, Raja-Murya Kale, equivalent to 170 B.C. The significance of the date of the record was emphasised by a reference in another passage to some Nandaraja baving excavated a canal in Kalmga three hundred years earlier--that is to say, 470 B.C1 This Nandaraja being identified with Nandivardhana, the ninth Sarsunaga king, whose date was previously taken as about 418 BC, Smith went to the extent of revolutionising the whole Saisumaga chronology, and put c. 554 BC for the previous 491 B.C. of Ajatssatru, and c. 582 B.C. for c. 519 BC. of Bimbisara. From this change in the chronology of the contemporary dynasty of both Buddha and Mahavira, and from a reference in the body of the inscription about an image of Jina being taken away by a Nanda kmg, both Smith , and Jayaswal 4 came to the conclusion that the Kharavela record supports the old traditional dates for the death of Mahavira, 527 B.C., and the death of Buddha, 548 BC. As we shall see later on, all these inferences based on the Kharavela inscription are of no account considering the latest reading suggested by Mr Jayaswal. According to it there is nothing like any reference to the Maurya era; but this factor is of very little importance, because we come practically to the same date of the inscription, taking into consideration the reference made to the great Indo-Greek king, Demetrios. The most significant change that has been brought about is that the canal referred to was cxcavated in the year 103 of the Nanda era and not three hundred years earlier, Thus the sole basis on which Mr Smith hurricdly took the step of pushing back the whole Saisunaga chronology by something like fifty years now falls to the ground. "I have been so impressed," said the great historian," by the new 1 Smith, JRAS, 1918, 546 ! "In the third edition of my Early History of India (1014) I placed the accession of Yandisardh na doubtfully about 418 DC He must now ro back to e 470 BC, or Mesebly to an errlier date That finding in olies putting back Ajatasatru or Kuniks (No S Sabunan) to at least c 551 BC, and his father Bimbisars of Srenika (No 4) to at Imst c 5B2C -Smith, op cit, pp 510-547 In his first edition (1904) Smith has put 101 c for Nnnduvarina, p 33, sectord ,p 41, tod, p 51 (4th ed 1024) "Accurding to Pah tradition Mnhil ira predecensed Buddhn But other reasons eport the date IGT DC,0s adsorted by Charpentier, and thus fits in with the traditional date of Bludrabilan, who was the contemporory of Candragupta Maurya The yene (28-7) nC, the most commonly quoted date for the death of Mahavirti, is mcrely che al nurl dates, but it is supported by the Khirivela inscription"--Ibid, P40 {ful p 50 * JRS zawal, J BONS, kol, p 216 * ruid.jp 21 T