________________
503
is 'Udrāyaṇa', and according to Divyāvadāna, (192), it is 'Rudrāyaṇa'. We get the name as 'Udrāyana' in later-day Jaina literature(193). Both the accounts are unanimous that he was the king of Sindhu Sauvira. However, they differ as to how he came in contact with Mahavira and the Buddha. In the Jaina source, the name of his capital has been given as Vitabhay, and in the Buddhist source, as Rorūka. According to both the traditions, he received inspiration in religion from his deceased queen.
A
According to the Jaina account, Mahavira went to Sindhu Sauvira in order to give him initiation in his own order, but according to the Buddhist account, the Buddha gave him initiation after the king came to him in Magadha, According to both the traditions, King Udrayana came back to his own capital after his initiation for a short visit, but he was murdered by the order of the king who was couns elled to do so by his wicked ministers. We have it from the Jaina source that before he became a monk, Udrāyana gave his kingdom to his nephew in order to save his son from the inevitable course of going to hell if he would administer a state. (In other words, he deprived his son of his rightful claim to the throne). According to the Buddhist source, however, he gave his kingdom to his own son, Sikhandi. Both the traditions agree that before he died, he became a Kevalin Arhat, after which his city was ravaged by the anguish of the gods (194).
The account of 'Rudrāyana' is nowhere available in the Pali literature, nor does it exist in the literature of the Hinayana sect. Both Divyavadana and Avadana -kalpalatā are the texts of the Mahayāna sect. The Mahāyāna Tripitakas are written in Sanskrit and belong to a much later period (195). In itself, the Divyāvadāna is a mere compilation, and its date of compilation falls somewhere between 200-350 A. D(196). Under this circumstance, it is very much likely that the Jaina account about Udrāyana has been turned into Rudrāyanăvadana by the Buddhist writers. Otherwise, how is it possible that the same king has been initiated both by Mahavira and the Buddha and he attained liberation? That the Buddhist work is a mere copy is further supported by the fact that in this work, Bimbisara and Udrāyana have been made to enter into friendship in same manner in which Abhayakumāra and Ardrakkumāra did
