Reconsidering the date of Nirvna of Lord Mahavira

Author(s): Sagarmal Jain
Publisher: Z_Shwetambar_Sthanakvasi_Jain_Sabha_Hirak_Jayanti_Granth_012052.pdf

Page 4

Reconsidering the Date of the Nirvana of Lord Mahavira
109
While determining the date of Nirvana of Mahavira, we would have to keep in our mind that the contemporaneity of Ācārya Bhadrabāhu and Sthūlibhadra with Mahāpadma Nanda and Chandragupta Maurya; of Ācārya Suhasti with Samprati; of Arya Mañkșu (Mangu), Arya Nandila, Arya Nagahasti, Arya Viddha and Arya Krsna with the period mentioned in their inscriptions and of Arya Devarddhigani kşamāśramana 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 Bhadrabāhu and Sthūlibhadra also. It is an undisputed fact that Chandragupta had wrested power from the Nandas and that Sthūlibhadra was the son of Sakdäla, 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 Bhadrabāhu 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 (Titthogālipainnayan: 787: Painnayasuttaim 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 Bhadrabāhu or Sthūlibhadra, Sambhūtivijaya was the head, because only in that particular assembly it was decided that Bhadrabahu will make Sthūlibhadra to study the Purva- texts. 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 Acārya Bhadrabahu remained Ācārya from Vira Nirvāṇa 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 Bhadrabāhu had already died 45 years before Chandragupta Maurya's accession. On this basis Sthūlibhadra 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 Sthavirävah (Muni Kalyana Vijaya: Vikram Tra 1987:p.
178)22 and Parisista Parva (8 : 339) of Ācārya Hemacandra also. On this basis only the contemporaneity of Bhadrabāhu and Sthūlibhadra with Chandragupta Maurya can be also proved. Almost all the Pattavaliss accept the period of Bhadrabāhu as an Ācārya to be 156-170 V.S. (Pattāvali Parāga Samgraha, p. 166; Vividhagacchiya Pattávali Sarngraha : 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 Bhadrabāhu was the last Śrutakevali, according to the Digambara tradition his year of demise must be the year 162 of the Vira Nirvāṇa Samvat. Thus, despite the fact that there is a difference of 8 years regarding the period of demise of Bhadrabāhu as accepted by the two traditions, the contemporaneity of Bhadrabāhu and Chandragupta Maurya is fully justified. Muni Shri Kalyana Vijaya (Sri Pattāvali Parāga Saṁgraha: 1966:52; Vīra Nirvana Saṁvat aur Jaina Kala Gananā : p. 137)23, in order to prove the contemporaneity of Bhadrabāhu and Chandragupta Maurya, accepted the period of Sambhūtivijaya as an Acārya 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 Bhadrabāhu and Chandragupta Maurya. But it is only his imagination (ViraNirvāna Samvat aur Jaina Käla Gananā-p. 137 & Pattāvali Parāga Saṁgraha - p. 52); there is no authentic proof available. All the Svetămbara Pattāvalis accept the date of the demise of Bhadrabāhu to be the year 170 V.N.S. Also, in Titthogali it has been indicated that the decay of the knowledge of the fourteen Purvas started in the year 170 V.N.S. Bhadrabāhu was only the last of the 14 Pürvadharas. Thus, according to both of the traditions - Svetāmbara and Digambara, the date of demise of Bhadrabāhu stands as 170 and 162 of V.N.S. respectively.
On the basis of this fact, the contemporaneity of Bhadrabāhu and Sthülibhadra with the last Nanda and Chandragupta Maurya can be proved only if the date of Nirvāṇa of Mahāvira 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 Sthulibhadra with the last king of the Nanda dynasty and Chandragupta Maurya. In Titthogāli Painnayam (783-794) also the contemporaneity of Sthūlibhadra 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 Mahāvira as 467 B.C. Himvanta Sthavirävalt also mentions that Chandragupta was enthro- in 155 years after the l'ha