________________
AUGUST, 1914 )
THE DATE OF MAHAVIRA
177
(1) Dhruvasena is by no means a very common name. It belongs to a certain dynasty at Valabhi, and we know, that Dhruvasena I came to the throne in A.D.526 ;
(2) This Dhruvasena had apparently no son, for he was succeeded in A. D. 540, by hi brother Guhasena 10 ; and
(3) If we take 467 B. C., as the year of Mahavira's decease, and count with one redaction of the Kalpasůtra-that this version was a really old and valuable one is shown by the fact that it is mentioned in the ultimate redaction of the canon--993 years from that event, we will find a most remarkable coincidence, for 993-467 is-=526, or just the year of Dhruvasena's accession to the throne of Valabhi.
From these facts I do not hesitate to draw the conclusion, that the great council at Valabhi was held just in the year of Dhruvasena's accession, and that consequently the present text of the life of Mahavira in the Kalpasútra, which had been finally settled there, was publicly recited before Dhruvasena. And this forms in my opinion a very valuable confirmation of the suggestion that the real year of Mahaviras death was 467 B.C.
There is only one more question to be dealt with here. It will be immediately pointed out by scholars, who do not find this suggestion acceptable, that it is expressly contradicted by the statement in the Pâli canon concerning Nataputta's death at Páva while Buddha was staying at Samagama in the Sâkya-land, consequently before the decease of Buddha himself. I fully admit this, but I believe that a somewhat careful consideration of the question will show that this statement is of no great value.
Evidence—and rather, strong evidence has been brought forward by Professor Jacobi and in this treatise for rejecting the year 527 B. C., and accepting instead, on the authority of Hemacandra, the year 467 B.C. And I must add that I consider this evidence too strong to be thrown over on account of this passage in the Pali canon.
The passage is found in Digha Nik III, 117 sq.; 209 sq. and Majjh. Nik., II., 243 sq.11 and tells us that while Buddha stayed at Samagama, the report was brought to him that his rival had died at Pâvâ, and that the nirgranthas were divided by serious schisms and almost on the point of breaking up the whole community. The statement concerning Påvá is partly correct, for Mahavira died, acording to the Jain tradition also, at Påvâ, and partly wrong, for as I have shown above12 the Buddhists do not mean the Påvå near Rajag, ha, which is still a place of Trilgrimage to the Jains, but the little town near Kusinâra, where Buddha took his last meal in the house of Cunda. Even this circumstance arouses suspicion. Moreover, I have pointed out above that the meeting with Upâli, which is said later to have been the real cause of Mahavira's death, implies nothing of that sort in the oldest texts. And finally the story concerning the schism makes the report still more suspicious, for the Jain texts know absolutely nothing about this, but seem to represent the state of the community at this event as an entirely peaceful one; and they generally conceal nothing concerning the schisms. But instead of this, they tell us of two minor schisms occurring as early as during the lifetime of the Prophet, 13 not to mention the everlasting trouble with Gosala and his followers, finished only by the death of this heresiarch. Accordingly I think, that some faint reports of these schisms reached the authors of the Nikayas, and were confused by them by the similarly .somewhat dim knowledge of the death of Nataputta at Pava--for which they mistook the place of the same name more familiar to them-with the story told in the canon. After all, I cannot find in this legend an obstacle to the result of the investigation as expounded above, and I wish to note two other circumstances, which fit in very well with the opinion as to Mahavira being somewhat later than Buddha.
10. If Skandila, the president of the Council, is the same person as tho ono mentioned in a Pugavalt published by Klatt, Testgruss an Bohtlingk p. 54 ff., he is sai to have died 414 afur Vira,v.e., 113 B.C.
11 That the succession of brothers was no rule in this dynasty is seen from the fact that Guhonen nin w Rucceeded by his son Guhasena II in A.D. 659.
19 Quoted and translated by Chalmers, JRAS. 1805, p. 665 sq. 13 Seep
