________________
102
happened in Pāvā, and hence, it is quite natural that on arriving at Pāvā, Sariputta must have referred to it.
All the three allusions bear the description of the ideological split among the disciples of Mahavira after his Nirvana. Though the Jain tradition itself does not give any direct clue to such an event, the possibility of some mutual discussion over the issue of Mahavira's successorship, cannot be ruled out. For, Indrabhuti Gautama Svami was the first Ganadhara i. e. chief disciple in the charge of the suborder (Gana) and hence, in normal state of affairs, he should have been ordained as Mahavira's successor, but as the traditional history informs us, Sudharma Svami, the fifth Ganadhara was ordained as the successor of Mahavira and that too, under the rule that Kevalin (i. e. omniscent) cannot succeed to the Tirthankara and Gautma Svami was a Kevalin while, Sudharma Svami was not Kevalin. Now it is plausible that this rule might have come into existence as a result of the above discussion. The possibility of a sort of dispute between the monks who were the disciples of Gautam Svami and the monks who were the disciples of Sudharma Svami, can also not be wholly ruled out. The fact that the Svetambar a tradition of the Jains regards Sudharma Svami as the first successor of Mahavira, while, the Digambara tradition of the Jains regards Gautama Svami as the first successor, also affords a slight hint towards the above possibility. Moreover the wordings. 'The disciples of the Niganthas who were wearing white robes' used in the Buddhist allusions quoted above, also points out to the dispute between 'the white clothed' (i. e. Svetambaras) and the unclothed (i. e. Digambaras) Nirgranthas (141). It is also probable that the Buddhists might have presented it in an exaggerated form in the above three allusions. It generally happens that the persons belonging to one sect often express even a triffling event of the rival sect in an exaggerated form. Dhar mannda Kaus ambi, the renowned Buddhist scholar has, accordingly, regarded the undermining delineation of Gosalaka in the Jain Agamas as an exaggeration (142).
One of the arguments given by Dr. Jacobi against the authenticity of the above allusions is that the Mahapar inirvana Sutta, which affords us the account of the events of Buddha's last days, says nothing about this event. But this argument of Dr. Jacobi does not prove at all that the afore
