________________
103
said allusions are inconsistent. At the most it only proves that the event described in the above allusions had not happened in the last days of Buddha's life.
Muni Kalyāņa Vijayaji has regarded the whole event alluded in the Buddhist Pitakas tobe a mere consequence of a misunderstanding of the Buddhist compilers. Muni Kalyāna Vijayaji, in his interpretation of the above allusions of the Buddhist Tripitakas, has observed (143) that the event of Mahavira's Nirvāna, which is described in the Buddhist canons, is merely the result of the rumour prevalent at the time of Maha vira's serious illness due to the injury caused by the Tejolesya of Gosalaka. He has also traced the origin of the post-Nirvana dispute among the Nir grant has (Jain monks), referred to in the Buddhist allusions, to the schism in the Jain order caused by Jamali during the life time of Mahavira. He writes (144): "The Buddhist delineation of the dispute and quarrel among the Niganthas after the Nirvāna of Mahavira, is, in fact, the grotes que form of the dispute between Jamali and Indrabhuti narrated in the Jain canon Bhagvati Sūtra".
As already pointed out, such efforts of 'reconciliations' can, in no way, be regarded as historical. It is in fact, a misuse of the word 'reconciliation!. For, the whole event of Gosalaka's dispute with Mahavira had happened at 'Sravasti' (145), whereas the disputation between Jamali and Indrabhuti had taken place at Campa (146). Both the events have no concurrence of the place and time, nor, the subject of these events are related to each other. Hence the argument of Muni Kalyana Vijayaji is not at all competent to prove the aforesaid three allusions as fallacious.
Again, it should be noted that all the three allusions explicitly mention Pava to be the place of the event of the Nirvana, and the event of post- Nirvāna dispute. How is it reasonable to relate with them the events having taken place at 'Sravasti' and Campa ? Moreover, how can it be plausible that a rumour about the death of a distinguished man of the age like Mahāvira, might be connected and might continue to have its sway over the people for so long a time? In addition to this, the whole event was narrated again by Sariputta during his speech, and that too in Pāvā its elf. If Mahavira had not really died by that time, Sariputta must have been informed of the reality by the people of Pāvā.
