________________
Mahâvîra And The Buddha
93
own last stay at Pava.10 The fact that the death of Mahâvîra evokes the mention of the possibility of the effect on the order of the Buddha's death does not indicate that death was then imminent. It may be noted also that in the Upali Suttanta the Buddha was at Nalanda when the episode of the defection of Upali had so evil an effect on Mahâvîra that it brought about, according to the tradition followed by Buddhaghosa, his death at Pava. At any rate, it is clear that we have no reason to assert that Buddhist tradition placed the death of Mahâvîra close to that of the Buddha, and it is then obvious that the silence of the Mahaparinibbana Suttanta is inevitable. If the tradition placed the episode as to Mahâvîra before the short period covered by that Suttanta, it could not possibly include it in its narrative. So far, therefore, from correcting the version of the other Suttantas, the Mahaparinibbana Suttanta accords excellently with them. Nor (3) can it be admitted that the Buddha, according to tradition, shows no concern for the future of his order after his death. This runs counter to the fact, recorded in the Mahaparinibbana Suttanta itself, that he assured Ananda that the place of himself as teacher would be taken by his doctrine. This assurance is significant of the position. It accords exactly with the frame of mind asserted in the other Suttantas to have been engendered by the news of the dissensions in the Jain community on Mahâvîra's death. In the three Suttantas alike, the result of the news is to make the Buddha insist that his doctrines provided a definite system which would prevent schisms in the community. In the Mahaparinibbana the Buddha gives the same advice; his doctrine is to serve as the norm. So far, therefore, from the Mahaparinibbana contradicting the testimony of the three Suttantas, it is perfectly consistent with it, while there is no evidence whatever that it is earlier in date that the other three Suttantas, or at least two of them.
Thirdly, to strengthen his view that the Buddha could not have known of strain in the Jain community on Mahâvîra's death, Professor Jacobi insists that there is no record in the Jain tradition of such a catastrophe in the Jain community at the death of Mahâvîra as is suggested by the Buddhist tradition. No schism, it can be asserted, was occasioned by the death of Mahâvîra. Indeed sects among the Jains developed relatively late, save in the case of
