________________
19
THE NATIVITY OF MAHÂVÎRA : A DISCUSSION*
-Asis Sen
commentaries
of
After the erudite articles and Commaraswamy1, Jacobi2, Brown3, Buhler, Smith5 and others on the nativity of the Lord Mahâvîra very little has been left for further discussion. These scholars have examined every aspect of the legend and the relative illustrations, and thrown light from all possible angles on the symbolism associated with the story of the brith of the Saviour. Coomaraswamy in his article, referred to above, has pointed out that the miraculous legend was in no way a contemporary Jaina invention and its 'ultimate explanation can only be found in the Vedic metaphysical tradition and or cognate traditions'. Independently, Buhler also expresses the same view after being taught by 'Mathura discoveries that Indian art was not sectarian', and that its symbolic and conventional devices have been drawn up from a common storehouse. This storehouse, no doubt, was that of archetypal ideas common to every human psyche in its subconscious zone collected at the stage of the origin of consciousness. These archetypal convictions are found to have repeatedly recurred in the imagination of the authors of different ages to make them vaguely infuse with their new creations. Thus, the ultimate explanation of these symbolic illustrations appear not to be embedded in the Vedic metaphysical or cognate traditions but in the conception of more archaic, may be of palaeolithic, or eve of the earlier stage of human intellect. Coomaraswamy has cited how 'with an almost literal fidelity' the conception of dual birth of the conqueror has been borrowd by the Jainas from the
* The Visva Bharati Quarterly, Vol. 19, 1954.
