________________
Ārya Bhadrabāhu
131
famous for its super-inflated megalomania and super-astronomical pampalomania--the problems that this kathā generates are, even at the first look, these :
1) In the established history of India, Samprati was junior to Bhadrabāhu by four generations, he being the great grandson of emperor Candragupta's son Bindusāra. Moreover, he never was known as Candragupta. So, this notice in the commentary is very visibly anachronistic besides betraying gross historical confusiono. (Samprati, of course, had ruled from Ujjayanī, but his preceptor was Ārya Suhasti who in turn was Ārya Sthūlabhadra's disciple, as gleaned from the post-Gupta śvetāmbara sources. And that hagiographical notice perfectly synchronizes with the known dates of the Maurya imperial chronology.
2) It is clear that, the legend of Prabhācandra and his unnamed disciple as noted in the Sravanabelagola inscription of c. A.D. 600, is transferred here to, or superimposed on Bhadrabahu and Candragupta duo. This new legend of the association of those two celebrities with Śravanabelagoļa apparently had come into currency in Karnataka by, or before, circa the mid seventh century and Bhrājisnu used it to fit it in his narrative context. The two inscriptions from Seringapattam taluq which are more or less contemporaneous with Bhrājisnu's commentary, likewise cannot be reckoned as good evidence for Bhadrabāhu-Candragupta connections with Śravanabelagola. The whole episode smells of improbability and hangs on a slender thread of an untenable notice. A solid and an unambiguous as well as fairly early evidence of Bhadrabāhu's migration with Candragupta to Śravanabelgola is wanting. No reliance can be placed on later writings which come in conflict with what is said and implied in the relatively earlier sources. The earliest inscription referring to Bhadrabāhu does talk about migration to South, but in that event neither Bhadrabāhu, nor Candragupta, or both were involved; and the earliest available literary source-Bhrājisnu's Kannada commentary (c. 9th - 10th cent.), too, does not illuminate the history because of the confusions it creates.
3) The commentator had given no thought on the logistics of as many as eight thousand friars travelling together, the problems about feeding them under the strict Nirgranthist rules of bhikṣā, besides providing them camping facilities, which virtually would be unmanageable in those times. In the pre-Mauryan and Mauryan periods, megalithic culture had prevailed
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
