________________
E. Leumann, An outline of the Avaśyaka Literature
to the Deccan. He, the rest under the leadership of Rāmalya, Sthūlabhadra and himself, stays back due to Sthūlācārya stay back. On the way, attended by Candragupti, he his great age. Then, after stays in a cave, death nearing. In the meantime, his successor, he has admitted King Višākha, leads the group further southward and brings them at the Candragupta into the end of the high costs back to the homeland where he does not order, he dies the acknowledge those left behind because of their lax conduct. Then, customary samnyāsa- when the old Sthūlācārya wishes to adopt stricter rules, the death under a younger monks kill him. Afterwards, they pay homage to his (bhadra)vata-tree in mortal remains, in spite of the fact that they alter the texts in their Ujjayinī.
own sense. Even though the Kathā remains silent about the differences between Bhadrabāhu and Sthūlabhadra, this could be due to the unusual brevity of its depiction. In any case, the expositions of the Caritra in question cannot be invented since they are supported by the Svetâmbara reports. Rather, on their part, they authenticate those reports, in spite of the concordances since they are different enough to be completely independent. Therefore, we feel able to conclude that religious differences arose due to an increase in prices during which Bhadrabāhu belonged to the more conservative and Sthūlabhadra to the more liberal point of view. Also, it can be assumed with certainty that the emergence of the inner conflict happened during the 150-170 years after Mahāvīra's death (ca. 320-300 B.C.). Firstly, the Digambara and Svetâmbara chronology approximate each other on the dating of Bhadrabāhu's death, treated above p. 24° & 6, as closely as the independent records or assessments going back to that period can be expected to do. Secondly, according to Svetâmbara history (above, p. 24°59f.), Sthūlabhadra was the son of a minister under the last Nanda, and thirdly, the joint reference to Candragupta (who deposed the last Nanda) in the Digambara report - even though his name has been changed in one case because the ending -gupti was better known to the story-tellers, the correct form of the word was retained by the other. The differences between the followers of Bhadrabāhu and Sthūlabhadra were probably aggravated by the political antagonisms of that time in that the former took the side of Candragupta, whereas, most likely, Sthūlabhadra sympathized with the Nanda party.
Still more might be deduced through a comparison of the Digambara report with the other one, if one could find an older version of the former 26°] that would be textually equal to the Avasyaka-story, or, at least, based in the main on the versification by Hemacandra. Very likely for the moment it is only possible to say that Sthūlabhadra's death, together with the events following, corresponds to the episode of the Svetâmbara tradition treated above p. 25'67-30). Considering the Indian preference to name brothers and sisters in a similar manner Sthūlācārya is simply another name for Sthūlabhadra's brother, Śrīyaka; the common earlier form Sthūlaśrī would have been differently shortened. The one, as well as the other, fall victim to the religious zeal of an intimate person, whereby a reconciliation or amnesty among the participating parties, and then through these, a renewal in the sphere of the Canon is achieved. If this renewal according to the Svetâmbara report is supposed to have consisted of the reception of 2, respectively 4 additional chapters, then their contents do not disclose any relationship to the prevailing differences. For this reason, it is doubtful whether it is possible to interpret that account in the suggested manner. At the most, the Bhāvanā, which after the depiction of Mahāvīra's life demands a fivefold adherence to the five commandments, could be a tendentious writing of the period under discussion, particularly if the original Paryusaņākalpa might have been opposed to it as an antagonistic equivalent.
* It need not be historical that Candragupta actually accompanied Bhadrabāhu; it is enough to know that the Digambara-s considered both to be contemporaries. As Jacobi has shown, the tradition puts the death of Mahāvīra 60 years too early, as it lets Candragupta assume power 215 instead of 155 years after that event; cp. Kalpasūtra, Introd., p. 7-10 and Parisistaparvan Pref., p. 4f.
* The following-up of this assumption requires, as preparatory work, a study on the history of the Daśāśrutaskandha-tradition for which no material is available in Europe.
72
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
