Tulsi Prajna 1993 02

SR No.: 524574
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Parmeshwar Solanki
Publisher: Jain Vishva Bharati
Publication Year: 1993
Total Pages: 166
Language: Hindi
Classification: Magazine, India_Tulsi Prajna, & India
File Size: 7 MB

Page 127

Mahavira Era
19
interval between Mahavira and them. That seems to offer us a solution as to the date of Mahavira. So it is worth while to examine the data in that respect and where it leads to.
(i) According to Himavanta Theravali, Nabhovahana died in Ujjayini 364 A.M., Gardabhilla became a King 394 A.M. and Vikramaditya became a king 410 A.M. Though not stated in the work, it appears to suggest that Vikram Era began with the demise of Vikramaditya 470 A.M.-a belief shared by several Jain authors.2 That means Mahavira died 527 B.C.
(ii) The Sakas were defeated, Vikramaditya ascended the throne and Vikram Era began 470 years after the death of Mahāvīra according to the Prabandha-Kosa and Vichara-Śreņi. That too leads to the same date.
(iii) Vikrma was coronated at the age of 17 according to the 18th gatha of the Sarasvatigachchha. If he was born 470 A.M. and coronated 487 A M., Mahāvīra would have passed away 543-544 B.C. That is the view shared by Dr. K. P. Jayaswal and R.K. Mukherjee.3
(iv) Vikramaditya appeared 466 years after the death of Mahavira according to the Satruñjaya-Mahatmya of Dhananjaya Sūri. Siladitya became a king 477 years after the Vikrama Era, says the same work. Historicity of the work is doubted by scholars.
Thus we find that while the Jaina tradition records the interval, 470 years do not mean the same thing to all the works. To some it is the period upto the birth of Vikrama, to others it is the period up to his coronation and to still others, it is the period up to his death. That raises questions about the source of information and its reliability.
Then, there are doubts about the completeness and authenticity of the account of the kings that ruled during the interval, or reasons best known to themselves, Jacobi and Charapentier have focussed their discussion on Merutunga. As earlier sources were not unknown to them, that is difficult to explain. Merutunga says Palaka was coronated in Avanti the very night Mahavira died. Jacobi and Charpentier have argued to disconnect Merutunga's account from Avanti and to establish that Palaka mentioned by Merutunga was none but Rājā Hastipālaka whose Rajjusabha Mahāvīra was residing in when he passed away at Pāvā. Their arguments are far from sound and I stick to the view that the Palaka mentioned was none but the son of Pradyota of Avanti. People in the days of Buddha and Mahāvīra knew him well and the tradition is expected to have a sound knowledge about him. There can be, therefore, no doubt