Mahavira Jain Vidyalay Suvarna Mahotsav Granth Part 1

Author(s): Mahavir Jain Vidyalaya Mumbai
Publisher: Mahavir Jain Vidyalay

Page 693

222 : SHRI MAHAVIRA JAINA VIDYALAYA GOLDEN JUBILEE VOLUME
(१) "सद्युक्ते सिन्धुदेशे वै विशाला नगरी मता ।। चेटकाख्यः पतिस्तस्य सुभद्रा महिषी मता ॥"
-Vimala-Purāņa (२) "भ्रमन्सन्नेकदायातः सिन्धुदेशे मनोहरे ।
सिन्धुवेला समुद्रासिक्षेत्रशालोचट्टकप्रिये (१) ॥७॥ विशालाख्या पुरी तत्र वर्तते शालमण्डिता । धनधान्य निधानैश्च देवनाथस्य पूरिव ॥८॥ सामन्तभवसंसेन्यश्चेटकः पतितां पुरीम् । तस्याग्रमहिषी रम्या सुभद्रा सुखकारिणी ॥९॥"
-Srenilca-Caritra (३) " सिन्धुदेशे विशालाख्यपत्तने चेटको नृपः । श्रीमजिनेन्द्रपादाब्जसेवनैकमध्रुवतः ॥४॥"
-Ārādhana-Katha-Koşa (४) " सिन्ध्वाख्ये विषये भूभृद्वैशालीनगरेऽभवत् । चेटकाख्योऽतिविख्यातो विनीतः परमार्हतः ॥ ३॥"
-Uttara-Purana (75) He then raised the question as to what might have been the reasons of the Digambara Jaina scriptures saying that Viśālā or Vaiśāli was in Sindhu-deśa, and made two suggestions :
First, it might be that the authors had equated Sindhu-deśa with Vrji-desa.
Secondly, there might have been a confusion especially because Ujjayini in Avanti, too, was called Viśālā' and there was a Sindhu river in the adjoining territory for which reason it was called Sindhudesa in the middle ages (8th to 15th centuries A.D.). The Digambara writers, Kamta Prasad Jain adds, lived more in the Ujjayini side and hence they appear to have confused Ujjayini (which was also called Viśālā) for the real Viśālā, little knowing that another Viśālä, different from their own, existed in Eastern India; moreover, Vaiśāli lay in ruins as we know from the account of Hiuen Tsiang, and this factor might have easily led the Jaina writers to forget the real Vaiśāli.
We are of the view that the Digambara Jaina authors knew the
2 Jaina-Siddhānta-Bhaslcara, 3, p. 51. 3 Jain does not offer any reason for the possible equation. 4 Cf. Kālidāsa in Meghadūta (I. 30). 5 Jaina-Siddhanta-Bhaskara, 3, pp. 51-52.