________________
83
sixteen years after the accession of Ajats atru while Buddha died in the eighth years of Ajātsatru's reign,
Now, as we have already seen, the belief that Buddha's Nirvāna took place in the eighth year of the Ajāts atru's reign, is quite legendary and only based on later works (112). Even if we assume it to be correct for the sake of argument, it could not be reconciled with the fact that Srenika had died seventeen years before Mahāvira's Nirvana (113). For if we assume Buddha's Nirvana to have taken place in the eighth year of Ajāts atru's reign, the interval between Buddha's and Mahāvira's Nirvana could not exceed nine years. But we have seen that Muni Kalyāņa Vijayaji himself states this interval to be fourteen and half years. Thus, there is a self-contradiction in his views. If there are such inconsistencies, how the solution put forward by Muni Kalyana Vijayaji can be considered acceptable? In the field of history, one has always to think from a historian's point of view.
Sri Vijayendra Suri
Recently, a valuable effort was made by Sri Vijayendra Suri to simplify the problem of contemporaneity and chronology of Mahāvira and Buddha. His novel treatise (114), dealing with the life of Mahavira, is really a treasure of historical facts. Sri Vijayendra Suri has proved in this book by adducing a lot of authoritative references that the date of Mahävira's Nirvana is 527 B.C. (115). Without making any critical remarks, he has accepted 544 B.C. as the date of Buddha's Nirvana, Thus, it can be said that Shri Vijayendra Suri has almost wholly supported the view of Muni Kalyana Vijayaji except the following modification. Regarding the allusion of Mahavira's death in the Buddhist texts, Shri Vijayendra Suri has accepted the view of Dr. A, L, Basham (116) that it was really the death of Gosalaka, and by mistake the Buddhist texts described it as Mahā. vira's death (117). This assumption of Sri Vijayendra Suri and Dr. Basham, is more speculative rather than logical. For, it is possible that for a while such misunderstanding could have prevailed, but how is it possible that it was retained by the Buddhists, in spite of the fact that Mahavira had lived for 16 years even after the death of Gosalka ? Again, as Sri Vijayendra Suri indicated (118), the scholars
