Jainaism in Ancient Bengal

Author(s): R C Majumdar
Publisher: Z_Mahavir_Jain_Vidyalay_Suvarna_Mahotsav_Granth_Part_1_012002.pdf and Mahavir_Jain_Vidyalay_Suvarna_

Page 3

132 : SHRI MAHAVIRA JAINA VIDYALAYA GOLDEN JUBILEE VOLUME
We are thus placed in a dilemma. If we accept, on the authority of the Bhagavati Sūtra, that Paniyabhūmi was near Nalanda and not in Vajjabhūmi, i.e., Rādha (West Bengal), the omission of this single name alone from the Kalpa Sūtra list of places where Mahāvīra spent the rainy season which otherwise agrees with the list of Jinadāsa, naturally creates some doubt about Mahāvīra's visit to Rādha. On the other hand, the visit of Mahāvīra to Rādha is authenticated not only by Jinadāsa but also by the canonical text Ācāranga Sūtra, as stated above. We should remember also that the Bhagavati Sūtra merely refers in a casual way to the places where Gosāla met Mahāvīra and it is possible to argue that the vicinity of Paniyabhūmi to Kollaga and Nālandā need not be taken as a definite conclusion. Dr. Barua was evidently of this viewwhen he stated, on the authority of Vinayavijaya, that Paniyabhūmi was in Vajrabhūmi, and held that probably it was a river-port in West Bengal.10
It would be evident from the above discussion that at the time when the Jaina canonical texts were finally drafted there was no clear tradition about the wanderings of Mahāvīra. Even his visit to Rādha or West Bengal is not altogether free from doubt, though it rests upon the testimony of the Ācāranga Sūtra and Jinadāsa's Cūrņi, composed probably not earlier than the 7th century A. D. But these testimonies cannot be altogether ignored, and we may accept as a provisional hypothesis that according to one line of Jaina tradition Mahāvīra not only visited Rādha but fixed his headquarters for six or more years within its boundary.
It may be argued against this last point that if Mahāvīra and Gosāla settled down in Rādha, Jinadāsa's reference to their visit to Rādha in the 5th and again in the 9th year of Mahavira's asceticism would be somewhat incongruous. But the same objection would remain, if we accept the location of Paņiyabhūmi near Nalandā, as Jinadāsa refers their visit to Magadha which includes that locality. Of course, this might be regarded as an argument against the view that they had any fixed headquarters at all, though this would be a very reasonable deduction from the statement in the Bhagavatī Sūtra, as interpreted above.
9 It may also be due to the fact, mentioned above, that Barua
disbelieves the whole story of the conversion of Gosäla by
Mahāvīra (See f. n. 5). 10 Barua, op. cit., p. 57.