Lord Mahavira Vol 03

SR No.: 023278
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: S C Rampuria
Publisher: Jain Vishva Bharati Institute
Publication Year: 2001
Total Pages: 232
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 20 MB

Page 104

Mahavira And The Buddha
95
Parsvanatha, as he perhaps also was, and (2) as a Kevalin, Mahavira was above all worldly interests, cannot be accepted. Apart from the fact that we are not told of anything so serious as a definite schism or catastrophe, it is clear that Mahavira was no mere follower of Parsvanatha. The Jain tradition does not even assert that he was an adherent, but, on the contrary, tells us distinctly that he departed in an essential from the doctrines of his predecessor, as was long ago stressed by Professor Jacobi14 himself, who held that the innovation postulated a decline in the morality of the community between Parsva and Mahavira. Moreover, even if, as a Kevalin, Mahavira was superior to worldly considerations, what has that to do with the effect of his death on the community? The disapperance of a great teacher is always a time of trial for his adherents, and, so far from doubting the truth of the assertions of the Buddhist texts, we may treat them as representing the normal result as in the case of Purana Kassapa, and common sense invites us to believe that what is normal really happens.
Still less satisfactory is the explanation offered by Professor Jacobi of the cause of the alleged Buddhist error. The Buddhists, he holds, confused the place of Mahâvîra's death, which is now identified with a village, Papapuri (Pavapuri) in the Bihar part of the Patna district, with the town's Pava in which the Buddha stayed in the house of Cunda on the way to Kusinara. The correctness of the Jain identification, Professor Jacobi holds, cannot be doubted. This seems a strange assertion, for he holds that the three Suttantas fall in the second or third century after the Nirvana of the Buddha, and he does not give any indication of the age of the Jain identification.16 To assert an error on the part of the Buddhists demands support by adduction of proof of the early date of the Jain view, which appears to be lacking and, at any rate, is urgently required. But, apart from this minor consideration, what ground is there for holding that a mistake as to a place was sufficient to cause the invention of an assertion of the death of Mahâvîra in the lifetime of the Buddha ? It is perfectly legitimate to suppose that the Buddhists were right in placing the death of the rival teacher before that of Buddha, even if they confused the two places. But that they were wrong in their identification is so far quite unproved, through possible.