________________
APRIL, 1968
245
In order to compensate somehow both errors, we may calculate the approximate interval between the death of Bhadrabahu (170 A V) and that of Vajra (575 AV), viz, 405 years, which contains seven patriarchates The average length of each patriarchate thus would be nearly 58 years, which is decidedly far too long to be admitted The true average may be estimated at about 30 years, for the six patriarchates from Sudharman down to Bhadrabahu lasted 170 years, which divided by 6, makes an average of 28 years To sum up if we base our inquiry on the wellestablished dates of the schisms, we arrive at the conclusion that the list of theras is imperfectly handed down, there must have been far more theras than are contained in the Theravali
One fundamental fault vitiating the early records of the Jainas is the confusion prevailing in their system of chronology An error contingent thereon appears in the account of the schisms
As entered in the table of the schisms, the 4th and 5th heresiarchs, Asamitta and Ganga, were disciples of Kodima and Dhanagutta, who themselves were disciples of Mahagırı, and the 6th heresiarch Rohagutta was a disciple of Sirigutta", disciple of Suhastin The latter and Mahagiri were contemporaries, being partners in the eighth patriarchate Therefore, these three heresiarchs, being prašışvas of Mahagiri and Suhastin, must also have been contemporaneous or nearly so Nevertheless the 4th and 5th schisms are placed in 220 and 228 AV, and the 6th schism in 544 A V Between the first two dates and the third there Is a difference of about three centuries, though the events to which both set of dates refers are separated from each other by less than as many decades It is hard to believe that there should ever have been Vira-era which contained the enormous error just pointed out Yet there is a parallel case which proves that such a wrong Vira-era had actually been in use during the early centuries of the Christian era
In the Theravali Chaluga Rohagutta figures as a disciple of Mahagiri But this is apparently a mistake For if he had been a disciple of Mahagiri, he would have been the senior of Asamitta and Ganga who were but disciples of Mahagırı's disciples, and this would not have been the 6th but the 4th schism Here then the Naryukti deserves preference before the Theravali The author of the Niryukti belonged to the line of Suhastin, and had no doubt first-hand information about its history, while about all that concerned Mahagiri and his line he could but reproduce the statements of alien sources This difference accounts for the fact that the 6th schism refers to the current era of Mahavira, but those of the 4th and 5th to a greatly erroneous one
Adapted from Introduction, H Jacobi, Sthaviravalicarita, Calcutta, 1932
