Mahavir Ki Nirvan Tithi Per Punarvichar - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary of the Jain text "Mahavir ki Nirvan Tithi per Punarvichar" by Prof. Sagarmal Jain:

The book "Mahavir ki Nirvan Tithi per Punarvichar" (Reconsideration of Lord Mahavir's Nirvana Date) by Prof. Sagarmal Jain critically examines the traditional dating of Lord Mahavir's Nirvana, which is widely accepted in Jainism as 527 BCE. The author argues that this date, while prevalent since the 6th-7th century CE, is not definitively supported by earlier Jain texts and that external evidence and comparative analysis suggest a later date.

Key Points and Arguments:

Traditional Dating and its Basis:
- The common understanding is that Lord Mahavir's Nirvana occurred 605 years and 5 months before the ascension of King Shaka (Shalivahana Shaka).
- This belief led to the widely accepted date of 527 BCE for Mahavir's Nirvana.
- Modern scholars from both Digambar (Pt. Jugalkishore Mukhtar) and Shvetambar (Muni Kalyanvijay) traditions have also largely adhered to the 527 BCE date.
- The earliest explicit mention of the 605 years and 5 months gap appears in the Shvetambar text "Tithogali" and the Digambar text "Tiloypannatti," both from the 6th-7th century CE.
- Before this period, earlier texts like the Kalpasutra and Nandisutra mention lineage of Acharyas but lack chronological details to fix Mahavir's Nirvana date definitively.
Internal Disagreements within Jain Traditions:
- Even within the Digambar tradition, the "Tiloypannatti" itself mentions four different interpretations regarding the time elapsed between Mahavir's Nirvana and King Shaka's reign: 461 years, 9785 years, 14793 years, and the commonly accepted 605 years and 5 months.
- Similarly, the "Dhavala" commentary on the Shatkhandagama also presents three views: 605 years and 5 months, 14793 years, and 7995 years and 5 months.
- In the Shvetambar tradition, there are two views on when the final recension of Agamas (Devarddhigani Kshamashraman's) occurred after Mahavir's Nirvana: 980 years or 993 years later.
- There are also differing views on when Chandragupta Maurya ascended the throne in relation to Mahavir's Nirvana. The traditional view places it in the 215th year after Nirvana, while Hemachandra's view places it 155 years after. Hemachandra's view is crucial as it contradicts the 527 BCE date.
Influence of Western Scholars and External Evidence:
- The lack of strong ancient internal evidence led Western scholars to use external historical and epigraphic evidence to determine Mahavir's Nirvana date.
- This resulted in several new proposed dates:
  - Herman Jacobi: 477 BCE (based on Hemachandra's 155 years for Chandragupta)
  - J. Charpentier: 467 BCE (also based on Hemachandra and Chandragupta)
  - Pt. A. Shantiraj Shastri: 663 BCE (mistakenly equating Saka era with Vikram era)
  - Prof. K.P. Jayaswal: No specific date, but discussed two traditions.
  - S.V. Venkateshwara: 437 BCE (based on Anand Vikram Samvat)
  - Pt. Jugalkishore Mukhtar: 528 BCE (supporting the traditional view)
  - Muni Kalyanvijay: 528 BCE (supporting traditional view but trying to resolve inconsistencies)
  - Prof. P.H.L. Egremont: 252 BCE (based on a flawed comparison with Buddhist schisms)
  - V.A. Smith: 527 BCE (accepting the prevalent view)
  - Prof. K.R. Norman: Around 400 BCE
Comparative Analysis of Jain and Buddhist Sources:
- The author emphasizes the need to consider contemporaries like Buddha, Bimbisara, Shrenik, and Ajatashatru. Buddhist sources are richer in information about them.
- While Jain Agamas are largely silent on Buddha, Buddhist Tripitaka literature contains references to Mahavir and Buddha being contemporaries.
- A significant point of contention is the Dighanikaya's mention of Ajatashatru meeting Mahavir (referred to as Nirgrantha Nataputta) when Mahavir was around 50 years old, and his Nirvana occurring in Ajatashatru's 22nd regnal year.
- If Buddha died in Ajatashatru's 8th regnal year, this implies Buddha was 22 years older than Mahavir and died 14 years before Mahavir.
- However, the Dighanikaya also contains an account that suggests Mahavir had already passed away during Buddha's lifetime, describing the disarray among Mahavir's followers after his death and the ensuing schism.
- The author argues that these conflicting accounts within the Dighanikaya are problematic. He suggests that the reference to Mahavir's death during Buddha's lifetime might be a confused report of a supposed death or a rumor of death spread due to a severe illness caused by Gosala's tejoleshya (fiery aura), rather than Mahavir's actual demise.
Reliance on Synchronicity of Key Figures:
- The author prioritizes establishing the synchronicity of key figures mentioned in Jain tradition with historical rulers.
- Bhadrabahu and Sthulibhadra with Chandragupta Maurya:
  - Chandragupta Maurya's reign is generally accepted as 321-297 BCE.
  - Jain traditions place Sthulibhadra as a junior contemporary and Bhadrabahu as a senior contemporary of Chandragupta.
  - The traditional dating of Chandragupta's coronation in the 215th year after Mahavir's Nirvana (leading to 527 BCE for Mahavir) creates a disconnect. If Chandragupta ascended in 215 VN, and Bhadrabahu died in 170 VN (as per Shvetambar pattacharyas) or 162 VN (as per Digambar), Chandragupta would have been too young to be a significant contemporary, and Bhadrabahu would have died 45-53 years before Chandragupta's coronation.
  - However, if Chandragupta ascended 155 years after Mahavir's Nirvana (as suggested by Hemachandra, leading to 467 BCE for Mahavir), then Bhadrabahu's death in 170 VN or 162 VN would place him as a senior contemporary, and Sthulibhadra as a junior contemporary, which aligns better with historical and traditional accounts.
- Arya Suhasti with King Samprati:
  - Samprati's reign is dated around 231-221 BCE.
  - Jain Pattacharyas place Arya Suhasti's era of influence from 245-291 VN.
  - If Mahavir's Nirvana was in 527 BCE, Arya Suhasti would have become influential in 282 BCE, making synchronicity with Samprati difficult.
  - If Mahavir's Nirvana was in 467 BCE, Arya Suhasti's influential period starts around 222 BCE, which aligns reasonably well with Samprati's reign, especially considering their potential meeting during Samprati's viceroyalty. This synchronicity is only possible with the 467 BCE date.
Epigraphic Evidence and its Interpretation:
- The author examines various Mathura inscriptions mentioning prominent Acharyas like Arya Manghu, Arya Nandil, Arya Hastihasti, Arya Krishna, and Arya Vriddha.
- Arya Manghu: Pattacharya dating of Arya Manghu (451-470 VN) shows a significant discrepancy (around 200 years if 527 BCE is used, 127 years if 467 BCE is used) with the epigraphic dating (around 130 CE). The author concludes that epigraphic evidence for Arya Manghu is insufficient to fix Mahavir's Nirvana date.
- Arya Nandil: Mathura inscriptions mention Nandil, but lack of chronological details in Pattacharyas makes it impossible to determine Mahavir's date based on him.
- Arya Hastihasti (Nagahasti): If Hastihasti is Nagahasti, his guru is mentioned in an inscription from 132 CE. If Mahavir's Nirvana was in 467 BCE, Hastihasti's period as a key Acharya would be around 154-223 CE, which is after his guru's mention, raising questions about his age. However, if Mahavir's Nirvana was in 527 BCE, his influential period would align better with the inscription, suggesting the traditional date might be supported by this specific evidence, although the long duration of his tenure is questioned.
- Arya Krishna: An inscription dated to 95 Saka (173 CE) mentions Arya Krishna. This aligns with the literary accounts placing Arya Krishna around 609 VN (314 years after 467 BCE, or 436 years after 527 BCE), implying his veneration well after his death. This evidence is found to be more consistent with the 467 BCE date.
- Arya Vriddha/Vriddhahasti: Inscriptions place Vriddhahasti around 138 and 157 CE. Pattacharyas mention him performing a consecration in 695 VN. If Mahavir's Nirvana was in 527 BCE, this fits well. If it was 467 BCE, it still shows a gap but is more manageable than other inconsistencies. The author suggests that considering the average tenure of Acharyas, the date 467 BCE could still fit.
- Maharaj Dhruvasena's Records: The tradition of the Vallabhi recension of the Kalpasutra occurring 980 or 993 years after Mahavir's Nirvana is mentioned. If this happened in the second year of Dhruvasena I's reign (around 526 CE), Mahavir's Nirvana would be in 469 BCE.
Conclusion:
- Out of the five epigraphic accounts examined, three strongly support Mahavir's Nirvana date as 467 BCE.
- Two epigraphic accounts could potentially support the traditional 527 BCE date.
- One inscription shows no correlation.
- The author notes that inconsistencies exist, partly due to the unreliability of Pattacharya dates and the lack of definitive tools to resolve them.
- However, based on the overall analysis of literary and epigraphic evidence, the author concludes that the date 467 BCE appears to be more logically supported.
- If Mahavir's Nirvana is placed at 467 BCE, then Buddha's Nirvana would likely be around 482 BCE (about 15 years prior), a date accepted by many Western scholars.

In essence, the book is a scholarly endeavor to re-evaluate and potentially correct the long-held date of Lord Mahavir's Nirvana by meticulously analyzing both internal Jain textual traditions and external historical and archaeological evidence, favoring the latter when contradictions arise. The author leans towards 467 BCE as a more probable date based on the convergence of several key historical and genealogical timelines.