________________
100
Lord Mahavira
3. Early life and marriage
Born in a rich family and being the only son of his parents, Jamali had all chances and facilities for leading a luxurious life in a gay and jovial manner. The account in the Bhagavati evidently shows that he was blissfully ignorant of the vicissitudes of worldly life outside his lofty mansions. It is said that he used to keep himself steeped in mirth and joy day and night. His methods of enjoyment varied from season to season. He took keen delight in thirty-two kinds of dramatic representations to the accompaniment of music and dances performed by beautiful women. Thus there appears to have been nothing extra-ordinary in his early career except that he was a rich, healthy, influential and clever prince, who was brought up in affluence and luxury.
Relying on purely cononical evidence, the marriage of Jamali to the daughter of Mahâvîra seems to be of somewhat dubious character. It is obvious from the Bhagavati that he had eight wives. All of them were young girls, born of noble families, refined, elegant, graceful and having practically indentical complexion, age, apperance and beauty. But as regards their names and parentage, the account of the Bhagavati is silent. There is not even a slight hint in this or any other canon, which may justify the general belief that Jamali was the son-in-law of Mahâvîra. On the other hand, exegeticall literature depicting Jamali as nephew and son-in-law of Mahâvîra does not confirm the view of the Bhagavati that he had more than one wife.
The Agamic account concerning Jamali's life is neither in accord nor in discord with the current belief which represents him as nephew and son-in-law of Mahâvîra. The commentators of the Kalpasutra, 11 the Sthanangal?, the Uttaradhyayana 3, the Visesavasyaka4 etc., are unanimous in regarding him as closely related to Mahâvîra. There is some confusion as regards the names of Mahavira's sister and daughter. The Acaranga (400) and the Kalpasutra (109) name his sister as Sudarsana and daughter as Anavadyangi or Priyadarsana. But in commentaries, we find the names Anavadyangi or Jyestha or even Sudarsana.
Now the question arises how far we should regard the popular belief regarding worldly relation of Mahâvîra and Jamali as authentic in the absence of any definite canonical evidence.
