Reconsidering Date Of Nirvana Of Lord Mahavira

Author(s): Sagarmal Jain
Publisher: Z_Jaina_Literature_and_Philosophy_a_Critical_Approach_001936_HR.pdf

Page 4

Reconsidering the Date of the Nirvana of Lord Mahavira
While determining the date of Nirvana of Mahāvira, we would have to keep in our mind that the contemporaneity of Acarya Bhadrabahu and Sthūlibhadra with Mahāpadma Nanda and Chandragupta Maurya; of Acarya Suhasti with Samprati; of Arya Mañkṣu (Mangu), Arya Nandila, Arya Nagahasti, Arya Vṛddha and Arya Kṛṣṇa with the period mentioned in their inscriptions and of Arya Devarddhigani kṣamāśramana with king Dhruvasena of Valabhi, is not disturbed in any way. The historians have unanimously agreed that Chandragupta ruled from 317 B.C. to 297 B.C. (Majumdar 1952 p. 168; Tripathi 1968 p. 139)., Therefore the same should be the period of Bhadrabahu and Sthulibhadra also. It is an undisputed fact that Chandragupta had wrested power from the Nandas and that Sthulibhadra was the son of Sakḍāla, the minister of the last Nanda. Therefore, Sthūlibhadra must be the younger contemporary and Bhadrabahu the older contemporary of Chandragupta. This statement that Chandragupta Maurya was initiated into Jaina religion, may or may not be accepted as authentic, still on the basis of the Jaina legends one must accept that both Bhadrabahu and Sthūlibhadra were contemporary of Chandragupta. The main reason behind Sthūlibhadra's renunciation could be Mahāpadma Nanda's (the last ruler of the Nanda dynasty) misbehaviour with his father and ultimately his merciless assassination (Titthogalipainṇayam: 787: Painṇayasuttaim I part: 1984). Moreover, Sthūlibhadra was initiated by Sambhūtivijaya and not by Bhadrabahu. At the time of first assembly on composition of Agama held at Pataliputra, instead of Bhadrabahu or Sthūlibhadra, Sambhūtivijaya was the head, because only in that particular assembly it was decided that Bhadrabahu will make Sthulibhadra to study the Purvatexts. Therefore, it seems that the first assembly was held any time during the last phase of the Nanda rule. The period of the first assembly can be accepted as before 155 years of the Vira Nirvana era. If we accept that both the traditional notions are correct and that Acarya Bhadrabahu remained Acārya from Vira Nirvana Samvat 157 to 170 and that Chandragupta Maurya was enthroned in 215 V.N., then the contemporaneity of the two is not proved. It concludes that Bhadrabahu had already died 45 years before Chandragupta Maurya's accession. On this basis. Sthulibhadra does not even remain the junior contemporary of Chandragupta Maurya. Therefore we have to accept that Chandragupta Maurya was on throne 155 years after Vira Nirvana. This date has been accepted by Himvanta Sthaviravalı (Muni Kalyana Vijaya: Vikram Era 1987: p.
109
178)22 and Parisista Parva (8: 339) of Acarya Hemacandra also. On this basis only the contemporaneity of Bhadrabahu and Sthulibhadra with Chandragupta Maurya can be also proved. Almost all the Pattavaliss accept the period of Bhadrabahu as an Acarya to be 156-170 V.S. (Paṭṭāvali Paraga Samgraha, p. 166; Vividhagacchiya Paṭṭāvalī Samgraha: I part: 1961 pp. 15, 37, 48). In Digambara tradition also the total period of the three Kevalis and the five Śrutakevalis has been accepted as 162 years. Since Bhadrabahu was the last Śrutakevali, according to the Digambara tradition his year of demise must be the year 162 of the Vira Nirvana Samvat. Thus, despite the fact that there is a difference of 8 years regarding the period of demise of Bhadrabahu as accepted by the two traditions, the contemporaneity of Bhadrabahu and Chandragupta Maurya is fully justified. Muni Shri Kalyana Vijaya (Śri Paṭṭāvali Paraga Samgraha: 1966: 52; Vira Nirvana Samvat aur Jaina Kāla Ganană: p. 137)23, in order to prove the contemporaneity of Bhadrabahu and Chandragupta Maurya, accepted the period of Sambhūtivijaya as an Acarya to be 60 years in place of 8 years. In this way, while accepting the date of the Nirvana of Mahavira as 527 B.C., he has tried to establish the contemporaneity of Bhadrabahu and Chandragupta Maurya. But it is only his imagination (ViraNirvana Samvat aur Jaina Kāla Gaṇanā - p. 137 & Paṭṭāvali Paraga Samgraha - p. 52)24; there is no authentic proof available. All the Śvetambara Pattavalis accept the date of the demise of Bhadrabahu to be the year 170 V.N.S. Also, in Titthogālī it has been indicated that the decay of the knowledge of the fourteen Purvas started in the year 170 V.N.S. Bhadrabahu was only the last of the 14 Purvadharas. Thus, according to both of the traditions - Śvetämbara and Digambara, the date of demise of Bhadrabahu stands as 170 and 162 of V.N.S. respectively.
On the basis of this fact, the contemporaneity of Bhadrabahu and Sthulibhadra with the last Nanda and Chandragupta Maurya can be proved only if the date of Nirvana of Mahāvīra is accepted as 410 years before V.S. or in the year 467 B.C. The other alternatives do not prove the contemporaneity of Bhadrabahu and Sthūlibhadra with the last king of the Nanda dynasty and Chandragupta Maurya. In Titthogali Painnayam (783-794) also the contemporaneity of Sthulibhadra and the king Nanda has been described. Thus on the basis of these facts it appears more logical to accept the date of the Nirvana of Mahavira as 467 B.C. Himvanta Sthavirävalt also mentions that Chandragupta was enthro-in 155 years after the Vi