Contemporaneity and Chronology of Mahavira and Buddha

Author(s): Nagrajmuni, Mahendramuni
Publisher: Today and Tomorrows Book Agency

Page 91

Research and Conclusion
monks), referred to in the Buddhist allusions, to the schism in the Jain order caused by Jamālī during the life time of Mahāvīra. He writes: "The Buddhist delineation of the dispute and quarrel among the Niganthas after the Nirvāṇa of Mahavira, is, in fact, the grotesque form of the dispute. between Jamālī and Indrabhūtī 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 Gośālaka's dispute with Mahāvīra had happened at "Śrāvasti', whereas the disputation between Jamali and Indrabhūti had taken place at Campā.3 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.
71
Again, it should be noted that all the three allusions explicitly mention Pāvā to be the place of the event of the Nirvāṇa, and the event of post-Nirvāṇa dispute. How is it reasonable to relate with them the events having taken place at 'Srāvasti' and Campā? Moreover, how can it be plausible that a rumour about the death of a distinguished man of the age like Mahāvīra, might be conected 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 itself. If Mahāvīra had not really died by that time, Säri
1.
Ibid. pp. 12-13.
2. Bhagvatī Sutra Sataka XV.
3. Ibid. Śataka IX, uddeśaka VI, sūtra 386-87.