Indian Antiquary Vol 27

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 57

FEBRUARY, 1898.)
A LEGEND OF THE JAINA STUPA AT MATHURA.
53
In the course of some further remarks on various miracles or remarkable events, which happened at Mathura, the Stûpa is mentioned yet twice. The first note says that Jinabhadrakshamaśramapa, performing austerities at the Stupa, built by the gods, pleased its guardian) deity and restored the Mahanikitha Satra, which had been broken and mutilated, because the leaves of its MSS. had been eaten by white ants. The second passage briefly recapitulates the history of the monument, adding that Åmaraja, Bappabhatti's patron, in reality made the restoration which above is attributed to that ascetic.
Like many other Jaina stories, Jinaprabha's legend of the Mathura Stúpa has so unreal and phantastic an appearance that, but for the note in the inscription, most Sanskritists would not hesitate to declare it to be a late or comparatively late 'invention of the Yatis without any substantial basis. If we possessed the Tirthakalpa alone, it most probably would be doubted, if not denied, that Mathnrâ ever possessed an ancient Stûpa dedicated to a Jina. In the face of the inscription this is, of course, impossible and it must be admitted that a Jaina Stû pa really existed in Mathura as well as that a myth regarding its divine origin was current at least about twelve hundred years before Jinaprabha's time. The case of the Mathrikalpa, therefore, furnishes another illustration for the correctness of the principle, proved of late years by various other discoveries, that it is dangerous to treat the Jaina tradition with absolute contempt. We see here that even a phantastic legend has a basis of real facts. A good deal of caution in the use of negative criticism seems therefore advisable.
It is, however, a very different question, if we may assume that the myth of the divine origin of the Stû pa, known to Vșiddhahastin and his contemporaries, was exactly identical with Jinaprabha's tale. This, I think, is improbable at least in one point. The statement of the-Tirthakalpa that the original golden Stûpa bore on the mékhalds, or bands, various images, made of precious stones, the malapadimd or chief image being that of Sapa rýva to whom the whole structure was dedicated, can hardly be so ancient. This description does not fit the ancient Jaina Stupas, which on the few sculptures, 17 hitherto found, look very much like those of the Bauddhas, and like these are not adorned with statues. But it would suit the miniature Stûpas of the Bauddhas, which were manufactured in great numbers for devotional purposes and worshipped in the houses of the laymen. The inscriptions on the monu. ments of this kind, which I have seen in the London Museums and in private collections, mostly show characters of the eighth, ninth and tenth centuries, but, as far as I know, never ancient ones. The use of such Stúpas, which may have also occurred among the Jainas, is therefore probably not so old as the inscription of Vriddhahastin, and it is difficult to believe that their description could have stood in the legend of his time. The old legend perhaps may have spoken of a golden relic casket, possibly in the shape of a Stúpa, which the gods or the goddess Kubêra (who hitherto has not been traced in other Jaina works) brought to Mathura and which was first kept exposed to the view and later deposited in a brick Stúpa and finally encased in stone. The event may have been fixed in the time of Supâráva, as the Mathura incriptions furnish abundant proof that the legend of the twenty-four Tirthamkaras did exist during the role of the Kushana kings. The Stûpa may ulso have been dedicated to Supårsra. The Nigliva Edict has proved that the Bauddhas erected Stûpas to their mythical Buddhas even before the time of Asoka, and there is no reason for deuying that their rivals may have done so likewise. This point may possibly be settled by a thorough examination of the sculptures, found by Dr. Führer. With respect to the alleged restoration by Bappabbatti or by âmaraja at Bappabhatti's request, it may be noted that Jinaprabha's date for Bappabhatti's birth, A. V. 1300, slightly differs from the more usual one, Vikrama Samvat 800,18 and agrees better with that given in the Pattavalis for his death, A. V. 1365 or V. S. 895. The inscriptions in no way confirm Bappabhatti's and Amaraja's traditional dates or the restoration ascribed to them. The Kankili Tila has yielded only two documents later than the Kushana
11 See the Plates, mentioned in note 13 to this article.
18 Indian Antiquary, Vol. XI. p. 253.