________________
122
Lord Mahâvîra
546 B.C. and of A. Santiraja Sastri who calculates 662 B.C. A group of Jain scholars, including Muni Kalyana Vijayaji, Shanti Lal Shah, Muni Shri Nagrajj and others argue in favour of the traditional date, 528 or 527 B.C. while H.C. Seth proposes 488 B.C., C. D. Chatterjee 486 B.C. etc. etc.
The question of the reliability of the chronology as handed down in Jain sources has already been discussed by Andre Bareau in his fundamental contribution on the date of the Buddha's Nirvana." There, he arrived at the conclusion that “the most decisive argument for the generally agreed date of 468 B.C. for the Nirvana of Mahâvîra consists of its agreement with the generally accepted date of the Nirvana of the Buddha, viz., ca. 480 B.C.
If this is the case, however, the date of Mahâvîra's Nirvana as calculated by modern scholars on the basis of Jaina traditional chronology, cannot be upheld any more. I refer here to my contribution on the date of the Buddha where it has been established that the so-called corrected Ceylonese chronology. i.e. ca. 480 B.C: does not represent a reliable historical tradition. There cannot be much doubt that the Buddha's Nirvana should be dated much later, probably around 350 B.C.
However, apart from the Buddhist chronology, another argument in favour of the traditionally adopted Jaina chronology has been quoted. As J. Filliozat has pointed out, the date 313 B.C. for Candragupta's accession to the throne is not only handed down in a particular Jaina chronlogy, but also in ancient Western sources. Therefore, this Jaina chronology must be founded on an ancient and reliable chronological tradition. The question remains, however, what conclusions we may draw from this ancient chronological information. Though it provides a correct date for Candragupta's accession to the throne, this does not necessarily imply that the author had correct chronological information for the earlier period. To recall a corresponding case from the discussion of the early Buddhist sources, we known that Ceylonese chronology is reliable from Dutthagamani onwards, but not earlier, though the list of kings is reliable as far back as Devanampiyatissa who is dated 65 years too early in the Ceylonese chronoicles. Moreover, there is no agreement of the Jaina chronology of the early period with that of the Buddhist
