Correlation Of Jaina Inscriptions With Sthaviravalis

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided text, focusing on the core arguments and findings of U. P. Shah in "Correlation of Jaina Inscriptions with Sthavirāvalīs":

Central Thesis: U. P. Shah's article argues for the crucial importance of correlating Jaina inscriptions with sthavirāvalīs (lists of monastic preceptors or successions) to accurately date Jaina monks, historical events, and the development of Jaina traditions. He highlights inconsistencies in older epigraphic readings and interpretations, proposing revisions based on comparisons with traditional Jaina genealogies.

Key Arguments and Examples:

1. Need for Epigraphic Revision: Shah begins by emphasizing the necessity of re-examining Jaina inscriptions, particularly those from Mathura, with the aid of recent advancements in paleography and epigraphy. He points out that older readings contained errors, citing examples like "Vodve thupe" being corrected to "pratimavo dve thupe devanirmited" and "Arhat Nandyavarta" to "Munisuvrata."

2. Paleography and Dating Consistency: He stresses that inscriptions dated similarly in script should exhibit identical or very similar paleographical features. Discrepancies might indicate the use of different eras or omitted centuries, as suggested by Lohuizen-de-Leeuw.

3. The Son Bhandar Cave Inscription (Rajgir):

   • Identification: Shah proposes that the inscription mentioning "Muni Vairadeva, the jewel among the ācāryas" refers to the prominent Śvetāmbara pontiff Ārya Vajra (also known as Ārya Vaira or Vajra-svāmī).
   • Dating Discrepancies: While paleographical analysis often assigns the cave to the 3rd or 4th century AD, the architectural style suggests an earlier date, possibly close to the Mauryan period caves (Barabar and Nāgārjuni). The presence of Mauryan polish further supports an early date, not later than the 1st century AD.
   • Sthavirāvalī Correlation: The traditional date for Ārya Vajra's death is around 57 AD (or 584 years after Mahāvīra's nirvāṇa, which could be around 107 AD based on corrected dates). If the inscription is posthumous and refers to him, it pushes the inscription's date back considerably from common paleographic estimates.
   • Sectarian Debate: Shah addresses doubts that the cave belongs to the Digambara sect, noting that there is no known Ācārya Vaira in Digambara paṭṭāvalīs. He highlights that Ārya Vajra is a significant figure in Śvetāmbara tradition, the originator of the Vairi (Vajrī) śākhā.
   • Caitya-vāsa Practice: The inscription's mention of caves suitable for ascetics (implying caitya-vāsa, dwelling in shrines) is significant. Shah connects this practice to Ārya Vajra, identifying him as an innovator who introduced or popularized this custom among Śvetāmbara monks, even though it later faced degradation.
   • Later Addition of Inscription: He suggests the inscription was carved around the 4th century AD when one of the caves was taken over by Vaishnavites, by the followers of Ārya Vajra who still possessed the other cave.

4. Mathura Inscriptions (Kankali Tila):

   • Focus on Arya Mangu: Shah examines two inscriptions from Mathura, dated to years 52 and 54 (approximately 130 and 132 AD based on the Kuṣāṇa era). These inscriptions refer to Ārya Divita and Ārya Deva, disciples of Gani Ārya Manguhasti (or Māghahasti).
   • Identification of Arya Mangu: He equates Ārya Manguhasti/Māghahasti with the revered pontiff Ārya Mangu mentioned in the Nandi-sūtra sthavirāvalī. This identification is supported by the consistency of the gaṇa, kula, śākhā, and sambhoga mentioned in the inscriptions and the veneration of Ārya Mangu in the Nandi-sūtra.
   • Vairi Śākhā Origin: The inscriptions place Ārya Mangu in the Vairī (Vajrī) śākhā. This śākhā is understood to have originated from Ārya Vajra. Therefore, Ārya Mangu must have flourished later than or as a junior contemporary of Ārya Vajra.
   • Challenges to Tapāgaccha-Pattāvali Dates: Shah contrasts this with dates given in later (17th century) Tapāgaccha-pattāvalīs, which suggest Arya Mangu predates Arya Vajra. He dismisses these later accounts due to their late composition.
   • Literary and Scholarly Support: He cites further evidence from Śvetāmbara literature (like the Nisitha cūrni and Avashyaka cūrni) that describes Arya Mangu as a learned monk, though with a cautionary tale about his rebirth as a Yakṣa due to greed, highlighting his fame and academic prowess. He also points to Digambara authors (Virasena, Jinasena) who cite Mahāvācaka Ārya Mankşu (identified with Arya Mangu), showing his importance across sectarian lines.
   • Dating Uncertainty: Shah acknowledges the difficulty in definitively fixing the era used in Mathura inscriptions that don't explicitly mention Kushan rulers. He discusses potential eras (Kushan or Saka) and the impact of differing calculations for Mahāvīra's nirvāṇa and the start of the Kushan era on the dating of Arya Vajra and Arya Mangu. However, the core conclusion remains that Arya Mangu is likely later than Arya Vajra.

Overall Contribution:

U. P. Shah's article is a significant contribution to Jaina historiography. It demonstrates the methodological rigor required to reconcile epigraphic evidence with traditional Jaina accounts. By carefully analyzing inscriptions and cross-referencing them with sthavirāvalīs, he aims to establish a more accurate chronological framework for key Jaina personalities and their lineages, thereby illuminating the development of Jaina thought and practice. The article also highlights the complexities of dating due to varying eras and the need for continuous re-evaluation of historical sources.