________________
Shri Mahavir Jain Aradhana Kendra
www.kobatirth.org
Acharya Shri Kailassagarsuri Gyanmandir
Introduction.
probably, no place in the original chronology of the Jainas. He is, I am inclined to believe, a mere chronological fiction of the Jainas introduced into their history in order to make it better agree with the Buddhist chronology of Ceylon. For the discrepancy of sixty years between the traditional date of Mahâvîra's Nirvana and the one inferred from Hemacandra's statement, reminds us too strongly of a similar discrepancy of 66 years incorporated in the chronology of the Bauddhas, to think of an independent origin of both. We know that the Jainas were once numerous and powerful amongst the Tamulians. For a strong influence of Jainism can be traced in the early Tamil literature as noticed by Graul and Caldwell?). It was perhaps then and there, that the Jainas, living on the tinent opposite to Ceylon, were influenced by the Bauddhas, and altered their own chronology after the model of that of the rival sect. But this is, of course, a mere conjecture, and I will not lessen its value by urging it too far. To return to our discussion of the date of the Nirvâņa, it is obvious that the year 467 B.C. which we inferred from Hemacandra's record, can not be far wrong, because it agrees so very well with the adjusted date of Buddha's Nirvâna 477 B.C., a synchronism which by our previous research has been established as necessary.
The greater value of the adjusted date of the Nirvâņa as compared with the traditional one can, moreover, be established by collateral proofs adduced from Jaina history. For the Âvaçyakasútra, one of the âgamas or sacred books of the Jainas, gives, in the chapter called uvaghấya nijjuttî, details of the six nihnavas or schisms; they are repeated at greater length in the Țika of the Uttaradhyayana by Devendraganin sam 1179 (navakarahara)2). The third nihnava , the avyaktamatam, was, according to both authorities, originated 214 A.V. by the disciples of Ashâdha. The Mauryaking of Râjagriha, Balabhadra, (Muriya Balabhadda A.S., Moriyavainsapasûo U.T.) brought the heretics back to the right faith. If the gâthâs were right in dating the Maurya dynasty from 215 A.V., a branch of that family could hardly have reigned at Râjagļiha 214 A.V. But there is no improbability in the statement if we accept Hemacandra's date according to which the Maurya dynasty begins 155 years after the Nirvâņa; this involves, of course, the correctness of the adjusted date of the Nirvâņa. To the same result we are led by the following consideration. Mahâgiri and Suhastin were, according to all Therâvalîs, disciples of Sthûlabhadra, who is unanimously said by all writers to have
1) See Caldwell, compar. Gram, of Draviờian languages intr. p. 129 note.
2) This Tika has been extracted from the vritti of Çantyâcârya. The explanation of the text is his own work; the numerous legends told in his commentary are verbally copied from that of Cântyâcârya.
For Private and Personal Use Only
