Correlation of Jaina Inscriptions with Sthaviravalis

Author(s): U P Shah
Publisher: Z_Nirgranth_Aetihasik_Lekh_Samucchay_Part_1_002105.pdf and Nirgranth_Aetihasik_Lekh_Samucchay_Part_2
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269042/1

Page #1

Correlation of Jaina Inscriptions with
Sthavirāvalīs
U. P. Shah
While welcoming participants at the Seminar in Ahmedabad on the 'Aspects of Jaina Art and Architecture (Nov. 18, 1973), I had noted : "It is high time that all Jaina inscriptions from Mathurā are re-read and the old readings checked and revised wherever necessary. It is also necessary to have fresh verdict of the eminent epigraphers apropos the age of the script in each individual case, in the light of the advancement of our knowledge achieved during the past 50 to 70 years. The data from the Jaina sthavirāvalīs has to be correlated and we have to see if we can fix, with the help of these sthavirävalīs, the period of at least a few monks appearing in these inscriptions. For it is now becoming certain that there have been mistakes in the old readings.
“The reading "Vodve thupe" for instance was incorrect. Prof. Alsdorf had written to me that Lüders had revised it but could not publish the new reading in his life-time. Actually, the reading is pratimavo dve thupe devanirmited. In another instance K. D. Bajpai showed that the old reading "Arhat Nandyavarta" was wrong. The name, as he correctly read it, was Munisuvrata.....2"
"There are inscriptions, for example, which are dated around the year 30, the script in these inscriptions should be the same or very similar. There are inscriptions which are dated around 50, and around 90. The script of these inscriptions in each group must be identical. If this is not so, then the inscriptions are dated in different eras or with the sign for hundred omitted as earlier was suggested by Lohuizen-de-Leeuw."
With such fresh studies, we have to see whether the sthavirāvalis in the Paryusana-kalpa and the Nandi-sūtra can further help us in identifying

Page #2

164
Jambu-jyoti
the pontiffs and monks whose names figure in the inscriptions and we must see what the traditional date for them is. Let us first take the instance of an inscription in the Son Bhandar Cave at Rājgir (Fig. 1)3. The inscription generally is interpreted as meaning: "Muni Vairadeva, the jewel among the ācāryas (and) of great lustre, caused to be made, for obtaining nirvāṇa, two auspicious caves which are worthy of ascetics and in which were placed the images of the arhats (i. e. tīrthankaras)."
U. P. Shah
There are two Son Bhandar caves at Rajgir, adjoining each other, the second seems to have been appropriated by the Vaishnavites in the Gupta period. The inscription under reference has been understood to suggest that Acārya Vairadeva had both the caves excavated and images installed therein. A student of Jaina canonical literature and the paṭṭāvalis would immediately see that 'ācāryaratnam Muni Vairadevah of great lustre' can be none else than the great acarya Ārya Vajra, sthavira Ārya Vaira of the Sthaviravalis. I had identified this pontiff as such in an earlier paper", and the terminal date of Vajra, according to the Jaina traditions, was shown to be around A. D. 57 According to Jaina tradition, Arya Vajra died in the 584th year after Mahāvīra's nirvāņas. (According to Harmann Yacobi's corrected date for Mahāvīra's nirvāṇa, it should be A. D. 107).
The inscription, however, is assigned to the third or fourth century A. D. on paleographical grounds. But the cave's architecture, as shown by S. K. Sarasvati, essentially agrees with the earlier type of Barabar and Nāgārjuni caves and the learned authority had felt that the age of the Son Bhandar cave perhaps belonged to a date not far removed from them. The two Son Bhandar caves are more or less simple; the carved reliefs inside were added later as has been the case with several other early caves in India. The door of the Son Bhandar cave has sloping jambs with a taper of about six inches from the base to the top. The roof is cut into an arch, the arch has a rise of about 4ft. 10 inches and the height of the chamber is a little less than 12ft. It is clear that the caves are not later than the first century A. D. and that when the inscription was carved they were regarded as excavations originally done at the instance of Muni Vairadeva, and were in possession of those who belonged to the line of Muni Vairadeva.
S. P. Gupta has published a photograph of the still remaining traces of the Mauryan high polish of the wall of the rock-cut cave?. This certainly suggests an early date for the Son Bhandar cave, not later than the first

Page #3

Correlation of Jaina Inscriptions with Sthaviravalis
century A. D. Doubts have been raised by R. N. Mishra and Jyoti Prasad Jains regarding the identification of acarya Vaira with the Svetämbara* Arya Vajra and they suggested that the caves belong to the Digambara sect. There is no ācārya Vaira known to any Digambara paṭṭāvalī and even amongst the Svetambaras there is no other Vaira (=Skt. Vajra) who is such an illustrious great pontiff except Arya Vajra referred to above. Ārya Vajra had a disciple called Vajrasena. Vajrasena, according to the medieval Śvetāmbara tradition ordinated some monk-disciples at Śūrpāraka (modern Sopārā near Bombay)". Out of these four disciples started the four ancient kulas (orders of Jaina monks), namely; Nagendra, Candra, Vidyadhara and Nirvṛtti. Arya Vajra, the preceptor of Arya Vajrasena, is reported to have visited the Abhira country10, Dakṣinapatha11 and Śrīmāla, modern Bhinmala in Mārvāḍ)12
165
I had suggested that the inscription referring to Arya Vajra may be posthumous and A. Ghosh, the editor of the Jaina Art And Architecture remarked on this suggestion that "the identification suggested by him is therefore highly probable. About the date of the caves he drew attention to S. K. Sarasvati's views."13 Vairi (Vajrī) śākhā, known from some Jaina inscriptions from the Mathură Stupa, originated from Ārya Vajra (Pkt. Vaira) according to the Sthavīrāvalī of the Paryuṣaṇā-kalpa.
S. P. Gupta, in his Roots of Indian Art, pp. 198 ff., has discussed the architecture of the Son Bhandar cave and compared it with that of the Barabara, Sudāmā, and Dasaratha caves. He concludes: "....look at the Son Bhandar cave from any angle, the picture that emerges remains the same it is one of the most important missing links between the early Mauryan caves and the pre-historic caves. The Barabara caves are the logical outcome of the Son Bhandara cave(s)." He further writes: "The fact that the Son Bhandar cave has generally been dated to the fourth century A. D. on palaeographic grounds appears to shake the very foundation of the pyramid of our arguments. The inscription on the outer wall of this cave's, in fourth century Brahmi characters, states that the cave was cut by the Jaina muni Vairadeva who installed some Jaina images in it. The reading
★ Recent researches on our side show that he was a pre-svetambara pontiff of the main stream northern Nirgrantha sect.-Editors

Page #4

166
Jambu-jyoti
of this inscription, however, has been debated as it admits an alternate meaning according to which the term used for 'cutting' may equally apply to the cutting or fashioning of the images. In that case, the cave was earlier than the date of the images and the inscription put together. Saraswati has argued in favour of the dichotomy that exists between the actual date of the excavation of the cave and its real use by the Jaina muni Vairadeva."16
U. P. Shah
I had corresponded with late A. Ghosh when he was editing the volumes of the Jaina Art and Architecture. He referred to my views and remarked that the identification suggested by me was highly probable. It seems he thought over the whole inscription again when he gave the reading of the inscription to S. P. Gupta with the normal prose order of the verse of the inscription and a new special prose order (published in The Roots of Indian Art, p. 202). According to this new prose order the translation reads: "Muni Vairadeva, the jewel among the ācāryas (and) of great lustre, caused to be made the two auspicious caves which are worthy of ascetics as those in which the images of Arhats (i. e., tirthankaras) are installed." (This would mean that he did not have the caves excavated but only had images installed therein) 17.
This inscription has an additional importance for the history of the Jaina Church. It speaks of caves in which images are installed and which were fit for residence by Jaina monks practising austerities. This practice technically is caitya-vāsa. Usually, the Jaina friars do not stay in Jaina shrines. Vajra-svāmī or Ārya Vajra, a great knower of the Jaina canon and a jewel amongst the äcāryas, was an innovator and reformer. I had discussed this inscription with the late Muni Punyavijayji. He had informed me that, according to the Śvetambara Jaina traditional beliefs, Vajra-svāmī (Arya Vajra) started certain practices which are characteristic of the caityavāsī monks. Later, there was degradation amongst the caityavāsī monks but, in the beginning, the caityavāsa or abbetial practice, attributed to Arya Vajra in the Jaina tradition and supported by this very important old inscription, was not degraded in terms of monastic rigour, staunchness, and discipline. Arya Vajra, in point of fact, was held in high esteem as much in his own times as was in later centuries.
I believe that this inscription had to be carved on the wall in c. fourth century A. D. when one of the two caves, the eastern one, fell into the hands

Page #5

Correlation of Jaina Inscriptions with Sthavirāvalīs
of the followers of the Vaisnava sect. This was done by the Jainas of the school of Arya Vajra who still had retained possession of the western one of the two caves. The original Jina image or images of the time of Arya Vajra now do not exist.
167
The followers of the Digambara sect are reluctant to accept the above-noted interpretation for the fear of Svetämbaras being acknowledged as owners of this and other sites at Räjgir. But this inscription about Arya Vajra (who is known to the early pattavalis inherited by the Śvetämbaras) refers to the times when the Svetämbara-Digambara schism did not originate nor had the difference about Śvetämbara and Digambara images in worship come.18
We may next turn to the other problematic epigraphs. Two inscriptions from Jaina stūpa at Kaňkāli Ṭilā, Mathurâ, especially are intersting as they refer to a Jaina äcärya well-known to us from the paṭṭāvalis and other Jaina texts. The first dated in the year 52 (=A. D. 130), on the pedestal of a broken image, was published by Bühler in "Further Inscriptions From Mathura", inscription no. 18, Epigraphia Indica, Vol. II (reprinted ed.), pp. 203-204. The second edited by Bühler in EI., Vol. I., pp. 391, no. 21, as inscribed on the pedestal of a headless image of Sarasvati (fig. 2) from Kankali Ṭilă, Mathura. This is dated in the year 54 (=A. D. 132).*
Lüders discussed them again in the Indian Antiquary, Vol. XXXIII. pp.104f. Transcripts of Bühler's readings, placed side by side, are also reproduced there (fig.).
Bühler translated the first inscription as under :
"Success! The year fifty-two, 52, the first month of winter, the twentyfifth day, 25, at that moment (was dedicated) the gift of the worker in metal Gottika, the śura, the son of śramanaka, at the request of the preacher Arya Divita, (who is) the convert of the gani Arya Manguhasti (and) pupil of the preacher Ärya Ghastuhasti out of the Kotiya gana, the Vera (Vajra)
*The new date for the beginning of the Kuṣāna Era, as recently calculated by Harry Falk is A.D. 137. Hence the date of this inscription would be A. D. 189.-Editors. + The figure is also read at '94, in which case, following Falk's determination, the date of the image would be A. D. 231. The style of the image perfectly accords with
-
this date.
Editors.

Page #6

Jambū-jyoti
śäkha, the Sthānikiya kula, and the Śrīgṛha sambhoga. May it be for the welfare and happiness of all creatures !"
168
U. P. Shah
Arya Manguhasti was the pupil of Arya Ghastuhasti and Bühler's insertion of (and) after Arya Manguhasti is not justified, since the general usage for mentioning the teacher or father of a person in inscriptions etc. is such. The insertion of the word 'and' would show that Arya Divita was a pupil of Arya Ghastuhasti.
According to the correction by Lüders in J.R.A.S., 1911, pp. 1084, 1086, read, 'the Golika' instead of the member of the committee (Gottika) and 'Koliya' (Kautika) instead of 'Kottiya' (Kauttika.)
:
In the second inscription dated year 54, Lüders' correction, is read 'Koliya' instead of 'Kottiya' (Kauttika). This second inscription, on the pedestal of the image of Sarasvati, may be translated as under :
"Success! The fourth month of winter, the 10 day, on that date (specified as above), the gift of the worker in metal(iron-loha), Gova, the son of Siha, at the request of vacaka Ārya Deva (who is) convert of gani Arya Maghahasti, the pupil of vacaka Arya Hastahasti out of the Koliya (Kautika) gana, Sthānikīya kula, Vajrī Śākhā, Śrīgṛha sambhoga."
On comparing the two inscriptions, it is obvious that the Gani Arya Manguhastin, pupil of Vacaka Ghastuhasti (Arya Hastahasti) of the inscription dated in year 52 is the same as Ganin Arya Maghahasti, pupil of Vacaka Arya Hastahasti of the inscription dated Samvat 54. Gaṇa, kula, śākhā, and Sambhoga in both the cases being identical, there can be no doubt in regarding Arya Manguhasti as the same person as Arya Maghahasti. And Arya Manguhasti is the same as the Sthavira Arya Mangu of the Sthaviravali of the Nandi-sūtra1. The Nandi-sūtra-sthavirāvalī gives the parampara or succession list of the heads of the Vacaka-vamsa, who succeeded one after the other from Ganadhara Sudharma down to Dusagani (Dusya gani). In verse 26 of this Sthaviravali, we are told that Sthavira Svāti of Hārīta gotra was succeeded by Arya Śyama of Hārīta gotra. The latter is followed by Arya Sandilla (Sandilya) of Kausika gotra, succeeded by Arya Jitadhara and Ārya Samudra whose word was regarded as authority in islands and beyond the three oceans (vss. 26, 27). As I have elsewhere shown, Arya Śyāma is Ārya Kalaka of the Kālakācārya-kathās

Page #7

Correlation of Jaina Inscriptions with Sthavirävalis
169
and Arya Samudra is his grandpupil Arya Sāgara śramana of the same Kalaka-kathāṣ20 Next, in vs. 28, Ārya Mangu is paid respects in the following words :
Bhanagam karagam jharagam pabhavagam nāņa-damsanaguņānam vandāmi Ajja-Manguin suyasāgarapäragam dhiram 128||
The above-cited gathā shows how great a sthavira the Arya Mangu was. He was a pontiff of great virtues of jñāna and darśana, a great personality who could impress upon others (and who had superhuman powers, the pabhāvaga=prabhāvaka one who had crossed the ocean of canonical learning (śrutasāgara-paraga]).
These inscriptions show that Arya Mangu belonged to Vera or Vaira, i.e. Vajra or Vajrī sākhā. Origin of this sākhā, according to the Sthaviravali of the Paryusana-kalpa (according to its vistrta-vācana), is as under :
"From the two sthaviras of the Vyāghräpatya line, Susthita (alias Kotika) and Supratibuddha (alias Kākandaka) branched out the gana named Kotika which had four śākhās and four kulas. What were the sākhās ? They were : First, Uccanāgarī, and then Vidyadharī, Vajrī, Madhyamikā--such were the four sākhas of the gana named Kotika." Arya Mangu or Arya Māghahasti belonged to this Vajri sākhā. The two inscriptions discussed in the foregoing refer to this Vajri or Veră or Vairā sākhā derived from Arya Vajra who was a pupil of sthavira Arya Sihagiri (Simhagiri), jātismara of the Kausika gotra, as the Sthavirāvali tells us in sû.11. This sthavira Arya Sīhagiri and sthavira Arya śānti-sainika (= śāntisena ?) were the two disciples of Sthavira Āryadatta who was a disciple of sthavira Arya Indradatta who himself was a disciple of sthavira Arya Supratibuddha alias Kākandaka. Both Susthita (alias Kautika) and Supratibuddha (alias Kākandika) were disciples of Arya Suhasti. We know from other sources that Sthavira Ārya Suhasti was a contemporary of the Mauryan ruler Samprati. Suhasti is credited to have brought Samprati to the Nirgrantha fold.
In an inscription published by K. D. Bajpai?? and again discussed by M.A. Dhaky22 we find reference to Kautika-gana, śāntinika-kula, an the Vajrī sākhả in the inscription which is dated in the year 17 of Kaniska, which proves that both Arya Sāntinika, the contemporary of Arya Sīhagiri and Arya Vajra, the pupil of Sihagiri lived before the year 17 of Kaniska, since Vajrī sākhá is said to have originated from Arya Vajra. Since Manguhasti

Page #8

170
U. P. Shah
Jambu-jyoti
or Maghahasti of inscriptions dated in the years 52 and 54 belonged to Vajrī sākhā, it would show that Manguhasti or Māghahasti flourished later than Arya Vajra23
Now, if this Māghahasti is the same as Ārya Mangu, then Arya Mangu is later than Arya Vajra. But the Tapāgaccha-pattavali, says saptasastyadhikacatuhsatavarse 467 Arya Manguh. But the same Tapāgaccha Pattāvali (composed in V. S. 1696 = A. D. 1639-40) says the following about Vayarasāmi (Vajrasvämi) :
तेरसमो वयरसामि गुरू । व्याख्या - तेरसमो त्ति श्रीसीहगिरिपट्टे त्रयोदशः श्रीवज्रस्वामी र्या बाल्यादपि जातिस्मृतिभाक्, नभोगमनविद्यया संघरक्षाकृत, दक्षिणस्यां बौद्धराज्ये जिनेन्द्रपूजानिमित्तं पुष्पाद्यानयनेन प्रवचनप्रभावनाकृत्, देवाभिवंदितो दशपूर्वविदामपश्चिमो वज्रशाखोत्पत्तिमूलम् । तथा स भगवान् षण्णवत्यधिकचतुःशत ४९६ वर्षान्ते जातः सन् अष्टौ ८ वर्षाणि गृहे, चतुश्चत्वारिंशत् ४४ वर्षाणि व्रते षट्त्रिंशत् ३६ वर्षाणि युगप्र०, सर्वायुरष्टाशीति वर्षाणि परिपाल्य श्री वीरात् चतुरशीत्यधिकपंचशत ५८४ वर्षान्ते स्वर्गभाक् । श्री वज्रस्वामिनो दशपूर्व-चतुर्थसंहनसंस्थानानां व्युच्छेदः ।
चतुष्कुलसमुत्पत्तिपितामहमहं विभुम् । दशपूर्वविधि (दं) वन्दे वज्रस्वामिमुनीश्वरम् ।।
-पट्टावली-समुच्चय, part 1, p. 47 But we must remember that, just as Kautika or Kotika gana had a Veri or Vairī or Vajri śākhā, Vārana gana had a Hattikīya kula (corrected by Lüders as Arya Halakīya kula) with Vajranāgarī sākhā, mentioned in a Jaina Inscription from Mathura dated Samvat 4, vide Luders' Inscr. no. 16. Thus Veri or Vairi and Vajranāgarī are two different sakhas. (See also inscription on 1.234, Lucknow Museum.)
__Luders' Ins. no. 18, dated in the Samvat 5 of Devaputra Kaniska refers to Kautika gana, Brahmadāsika kula, and Uchenagari Sakha. These are also referred to in Lüders' Inscriptions nos. 19 and 20 of Samvat 5. The Uccaināgarī sākhã emanated from Arya Sāntiseniä according to the vistrta vacană of the Paryusanākalpa Sthaviravali. This Śăntinika was contemporary, senior confrère of Sīhagiri (Simhagiri) the teacher of Arya Vajra. It is interesting to note that, in the inscription discussed by Bajpai and Dhaky, earlier referred, a mendicant of the Santinika kula became a member of Vajri sakha and not of the Uccenāgarī sākhä said to have been started under Arya śāntinika.

Page #9

Correlation of Jaina Inscriptions with Sthavirävalis
171
On the analogy of the name Uccenā garī (of the city Uccenagara-modern Bulandas'ahara)+ shall we suppose that there was a place called Vajranagara from which was derived the Vajranagarī sākha ?
Arya Mangu was a famous and revered pontiff having considerable/ proficiency in śruta or the Jaina Canon and was a prabhāvaka ācārya. The Himavanta Sthavirāvali (supposed to be spurious) says that Arya Mangu was a pupil of Arya Samudra. In this context we must note the order of gathās of the Nandisutra Sthaviravali :
हारियगत्तं साइंच, वंदिमो हारियं च सामज्जं । वन्दे कोसियगोत्तं संडिलं अज्जजीयधरं ।।२६॥
तिसमुद्दखायकित्ति दीवसमुद्देसु गहियपेयालं । वन्दे अज्जसमुदं अक्खुभियसमुद्दगंभीरं ।।२७||
भणगं करगं झरगं पभावगंणाणदंसणगुणाणं । वंदामि अज्जमंगू सुयसागरपारगं धीरं ।।२८।।
Next come two verses which are not commented upon by the author of the Nandi cūrni nor by Haribhadra sūri in his commentary and which are not found in all manuscripts of theNandisutra. Editors of thePattāvali-Samuccaya, part 1, give them as extra verses found in some mss. only and do not give them continuous numbers. Even in the critical edition of the Nandi-sūtra published by the Mahāvira Jaina Vidyālaya these were not accepted as verses of the original text and are treated as doubtful. They are :
वंदामि अज्जधम्म, वंदे तत्तो अ भद्दगुत्तं च । तत्तो अ अज्जवयरं, तवनियमगुणेहि वयरसमं ।। वंदामि अज्जरक्खिअ-खमणे रक्खिअचरित्त सव्वस्से। रयणकरंडगभूओ, अणुओगो रक्खिओ जेहिं ।।
-पट्टावली समुच्चय, I. p. 13.
Then we have :
नाणम्मि दंसणम्मि य तवविणए णिच्चकालमुज्जुत्तं । अज्जानंदिलखमणं, शिरसा वंदे पसन्नमणं ॥२९॥
–णंदिसुत्त, (Bombay ed p. 6)
+ Ucchera in M.P. according to Sagarmal Jain.-Editors.

Page #10

172
U. P. Shah
Jarnbū-jyoti
The Tapägaccha-Pattāvali says that Arya Samudra and Arya Mangu belonged to another lineage and thus it does not help us much in deciding whether Arya Mangu was later than Arya Vajra or was his Junior contemporary. When the Mathură inscriptions speak of Arya Manguhasti or Māghahasti as belonging to Vairi śākhā, we have to presume that he was either later than Ārya Vajra or was his junior contemporary or that the Vairi śäkhā to which Maghahsti belonged had started before Ārya Vajra if the dates of Arya Mangu (467 years after Mahāvīra) and of Arya Vajra (years 496 to 584 after Mahāvīra) given by the Tapāgaccha Pattavali in the 17th century are to be believed. It is difficult, however, to rely on the dates it gives composed as it was in as late a period as the 17th century. But it is certain that, as shown by the Nandi-sthaviravalī, Ārya Mangu succeeded Arya Samudra as 'Vācaka-mukhya', the Nandi-sthavirāvali concerns itself with the Văcakas. Arya Mangu's active association with Mathurā is supported by several texts. Hence it is reasonable to regard Arya Mangu of literary works and Arya Manguhasti or Māghahasti of the two Mathurā inscriptions referred to above as identical24
In the Prakrit Proper Names (Ed. Pt. Dalsukh Malvania), part II, p. 537, we have the following entry about Mangu :- A learned preceptor (Nan, V. 29). Owing to his greed for food he became a Jakkha after his death at Mathură (Nis. Bh. 3200. Nis. Cü. II. pp. 125-26; III. p. 142. Av. Cü. II. p. 80. NanM. p. 50. GacV. p. 31.). He had a different opinion regarding dravyācārya (Av. Cū. I. p. 585. Brhm. p. 144. Vyabh. 6. 239 ff.)25. Samudda was his preceptor and Nandila26 his disciple (Nan. 28, 29).
In the “Pratikramaņa adhyayana" of the Avasyaka cürņi, while referring to the pratikramana of three types of gaurava-virädhanā, the story is given of Arya Mangu, a Jaina monk who was reborn as a Yaksa in Mathurā on account of egoism : xxx fayfa 3Gibu HET 3 323i fractica
डक्कतो कालं कातुं महराए णिद्धवणजक्खो उववण्णो, ताहे जक्खायतणस्स अदरेण साहणो बोबेंताणं जक्खपडिमं अणुपविसितुं जीहं निल्लालेति, एवं अण्णदावि कते साधूहिं पुच्छितो भणति-अहं सो पावकम्मो अज्जमंगू जीहादोसेण एत्थ उववण्णो तं मा तुब्भे गारवपहिबद्धा विद्धंधसा होहिह, एतेहिंगारवेहि जो मे Hra cosa I Av. Cù. I. p. 80.
The Niśītha cūrni calls him a bahuśruta, well-versed in canon, and having a large group of disciples : 774 FA IGTESUT - "Javiet" er ""
मधुरा मंगू आगम बहुसुय वेरग सडपूया-य । सातादि-लोभ-णितिए, मरणे जोहाइ णिद्धमणे ।।३२००।।

Page #11

Correlation of Jaina Inscriptions with Sthavirāvalis
173
अज्जमंगू आयरिया बहुस्सुया अज्झागमा बहुसिस्सपरिवारा उज्जयविहारिणो ते विहरता महुरं णगरी गता । ते "वेरग्गिय"त्ति काउं सड्डेहिं वत्थातिएहि घूइता, खीर-दधि-घय-गुलातिएहि दिणे दिणे पज्जतिएण पतिलाभयंति । सो आयरियो लोभेण सातासोक्खपडिबद्धो ण विहरति । णितिग्रो जातो । सेसा साधू विहरिता । सो वि अणालोइय पडिकंतो विहारियसामण्णो वंतरो णिद्धमणा जक्खो जातो । xxxx साहूहिं पुच्छितो भणाति-सोहं अज्जमंगू इड्रिसपमादगरुओ मरिऊण णिद्धमणे जस्खो जातो, तं मा कोइ तुब्भे एवं लोभदोसं करेज्ज ।। ३२००
—Nisitha cũrni (Agra, 1958), Vol-li Sū.43, 4109-111.3200, pp. 152-153. Also see ibid., p. 125.
The Digambara author Svāmi Virasena (A. D. 817), in his commentary, the Dhavalā on the Satkhandagama of Puspadanta and Bhūtabali, and ācārya Jinasena (A. D. 837) who finished his guru Virasena's incomplete commentary, the Jayadhavala, on the ancient Kasaya-pähuda-sutta and Yati-Vrsabha's cūrni on the Kasāya-Pāhuda, repeatedly cite Mahāvācaka Arya Nāgahasti kşamäśramana, Mahāvācaka Ārya Mankşu kşamāśramana, and Mahăvācaka Ārya Nandi ksamāśramana27. Prof. Hiralal Jain, the editor of the Satkhandagama, identifies Mahāvācaka Nägahasti and Mahāvācaka Manksu with Ärya Nāgahasti and Arya Mangu of the Sthavirävali of the Vācakas of the Svetämbara tradition given in the Nandi sutra of Deva vācaka (c. A. D. 450)28.
We have shown above that, according to the archaeological evidence of the two inscriptions from Mathurā, Ārya Māghahasti (identified with Arya Mangu as earlier shown) is later than Arya Vajra since Mangu belonged to Vajri-śākhā. This goes against the dates given in the Commentary on the Tapāgaccha-pattāvali. Under the circumstances, we have to reject the late literary evidence of the Commentry on the Tapāgaccha pattāvalī. But, if we can fix up the date of Arya Mangu, we can fix up the age of the above-noted inscriptions. At present these inscriptions are regarded as dated in 52 and 54 = A. D. 130 and 132 This would show that the era of A. D. 78 is used in these inscriptions.
Dhaky takes the date of Mahāvira's nirvana as 477 B. C. following Jacobi. Thus Ārya Vajra's date would be A. D. 177 and Arya Mangu would be a junior contemporary of Arya Vajra or letter a little later than Arya Vajra. Dhaky, following A. K. Narain, takes the initial year of the Kuşāna era as A. D. 105 and A. D. 78 as the initial year of the Saka era. If the dates in the two inscriptions discussed here are in the Kusana era, then they are

Page #12

174
U.P. Shah
Jambu-jyoti
dated= A. D. 155 and A. D. 157 according to Dhaky's calculation of the Kuşāna era.*
We have to remember that there are two types of inscriptions from Mathurā. One type which refers to the year of Kaniska or Huviska. But those which do not refer to the Samvatsara (Era) of any king-must we regard them as dated in the Kusāna era ?
The analysis done above is an idle exercise to arrive at a solution of the problem of the era or eras used in the Jaina Inscriptions from Mathurā. If identification of the acāryas named in these inscriptions and finding out of their age from the sthavirávalīs could help us, it would be a great forward step. For the present we can say that Arya Mangu cannot be earlier than Arya Vajra. Vajra's date would be either between B. C. 57 and A. D. 57 (acc. to traditional date of Vira. nirvāna) or B. C. 7 to A. D. 177 acc. of Jacobi's calculations29
Annotations :
2. This was a case of splitting the words, written in a line in inscriptions and
manuscripts, in a correct way. The inscription referred to two (dve) images (pratimavo) installed in the devanirmita stūpa. Similarly, in the Vasantagadh Jaina bronze inscription of Samvat 744 (A. D. 688), it is said that the silpin
Śivanaga cast two images of the Jinas. The other (identical) image is not inscribed. 2. See my observation in Aspects of Jaina Art and Architecture, Eds. U. P. Shah and
M. A. Dhaky, Ahmedabad 1975, p. xii. In the inscription, the name ingraved is
actually 'Munisucrata', a scribal error for ‘Munisuvrata'. 3. However, cf. Archaeological Survey of India, Annual Report, 1905-1906, p. 98,
166. 4. “Muni Vairadeva of Son Bhandar cave inscription,"JBRS., December 1953, pp.410
-412. 5. For more information about Vaira, see, M. J. Mehta, and K. R. Chandra, Prakrit
Proper Names, vol.II., pp. 660-661, and the "Parisistaparva" of Hemacandra's Trisastiśalākāpuruşacarita. According to the Vicārasreni of Merutungācārya (Ancalagacchiya : late 14th cent. A. D.) and the Duhsamākāla-samanasanghatthava, of Dharmaghoşa süri (c. 3rd quarter of the 13th cent. A.D.), the date of Arya Vajra is
* Now, of course, that date has to be reconsidered.-Editors

Page #13

Correlation of Jaina Inscriptions with Sthavirāvalīs
175
calculated as Virät 548-584, i.e., A. D., 21-57; vide Muni Nathmalji, “Jaina Darsana Manana aur Mimaṁsā, (Hindi), App.I.p.63. This of course would be the date of Ārya Vajra as ācārya or as head of the group of monks. Also cf. M. D. Desai, Jaina Sāhitya no Samkṣipta Itihāsa (Gujarātī), Bombay
1933, pp. 31, 37, 124, 6. Also see, A. Ghosh (Ed.), Jaina Art and Architecture, vol. II, Delhi 1974, pp. 88-89,
118-119 and plates 51, 52. 7. Gupta, S. P., The Roots of Indian Art, Delhi 1980, p. 201, pe.99, b.c. 8. A. Ghosh (Ed.), JAA. Vol. I., pp. 119-120 and infra. 9. See the Brhat-Kalpa-Bhasya, pp. 917-921. Also cf. the Pattavali-samuccaya,
Ed. Darśanavijaya, “Guruparvakrama" of Gunaratnasuri, p. 26, andŚr Tapăgaccha
Pattavali, pp. 47-48, and the Kalpa-sútra sthaviravali, p. 8. 10. Avašyaka-cūrni, pp.396-397. 11. Ibid., p. 404. 12. Avaśyaka-ţikā, p. 390. 13. A. Ghosh, JAA. vol. I., p. 89, note 7. 14. Gupta, The Roots., pp. 199-200. 15. There are many more inscriptions in the cave, including one or two in Shell
characters. To my knowledge, none of these other inscriptions so far have been
published. 16. Gupta, pp. 201-202. S. K. Saraswati, in The Age of Imperial Unity, pp. 502 f. 17. The inscription is read as under by A. Ghosh :
निर्वाणलाभाय तपस्वियोग्ये शुभे गुहेऽर्हन्प्रतिमाप्रतिष्ठे। आचार्यरत्नं मुनिवरदेवो
विमुक्तयेऽकारयत् ऊढतेजाः॥ The Normal prose order is : आचार्यरत्न ऊढतेजा मुनिवरदेवो निर्वाणलाभाय विमुक्तये(च) तपस्वियोग्ये शुभे ऽहत्प्रतिमाप्रतिष्ठे गुहेऽकारयत्। The new suggested prose order is : आचार्यरत्न ऊढतेजा मुनिवैरदेवो निर्वाणलाभाय विमुक्तये(च) शुभे गुहेऽर्हत्प्रतिमाप्रतिष्ठेऽऽकारयत् ।The Roots of Indian Art, p. 202. Lüders' List of Brähmi Inscriptions, no. 959; Cunnigham, Arch. Surv. Rep. Vol. I. p. 25; Bloch, A. S. 9.,A. R. for 1905-06, p. 98, note 1.

Page #14

176
U. P. Shah
Jambu-jyoti
18. For some canonical references to Arya Vajra, see Prakrit Proper Names, Vol.II.,
pp. 660-661. 19. The Sthavirävali is given in sūtra 6 of the critically edited Nandi-sútra, pp. 68, vss
23-24, Mahāvīra Jaina Vidyalaya, Bombay 1968, Edsn. Muni Punyavijaya,
Pt. Malavaniya, and Pt. A. M. Bhojaka. 20. "Suvarnabhūmi me Kālakācārya" (Hindi) published in Śrī Vijaya Vallabha-sūri
Smāraka Grantha, Bombay 1956. Also see, U. P. Shah, "Kālakācārya-A Revolutionary Jaina Monk," Bharati (Journal, B.H.U.) forthcoming issue as R.C. Majumdar Commemoration Volume; and "Jaina Anuśrutis About Kālaka" Journal
of Indian Museums, 1959. 21. K.D., Bajpai, "Three New Kushana Inscriptions from Mathurā," Jaina Antiquary,
VOL.XVI. no.1. pp. 13-16.
22. M. A., Dhaky, "A Propos of the Sāntinika Kula of Kautika Gana," Bharati, New
Series no.2, (Vārānasi) 984, pp. 149-151. 23. The other alternative is that the Vairisäkhă originated earlier than Arya Vajra.
For Arya Vajra, see, Agamic Index of Prakrit Proper Names, Ed. Dalsukh Malvania,
Ahmedabad 1972, part-II. pp. 660-661. 24. Incidentally, I would want to point out that 'hasti' seems to have been a suffix
added to different personal/pontiffical names, e.g. Năga-hasti, Su-hasti, and others. Whether all monks with hasti ending names belong to one line or not is to be investigated. But the name Ghastuhasti as the teacher of Arya Manguhasti suggets that monks with hasti-ending names belong to the same line. Ghastuhasti is an old Prakrta form for Hastahasti and Ghastu may be a scribal error for Ghasta. Now, we have in the Paryusanā-kalpa sthaviravali a few verses in the end after the prose Sthavirävali ending with Phalgumitra, the disciple of Arya Pusyamitra; also the disciple of Ārya Ratha who was a disciple of Arya Vajrasena, in tum the disciple of Arya Vajra. Amongst these ninę verses, we have two names : Sthavira Hasta as well as Sthavira Arya Hasti. But we do not know for certain that the monks mentioned in these nine verses are in order of teacher and the taught or are just names of some chiefs of the line of Phalgumitra. The verses are as under :
वंदामि फग्गमित्तं च गोयमंधणगिरिंच वासिदै। कोच्छं सिवभई पिय, कोसिय दोज्जंतकण्हे य॥२॥
तं वंदिऊण सिरसा, चित्तं वदामि कास्सवं गोतं । नक्खं कासवगोतं, रक्खं पिय कासवं वंदेश।

Page #15

Correlation of Jaina Inscriptions with Sthavirävalis
177
वंदामि अज्जनागं च गोयमं च जेहिलं च वासिटुं। विण्हुं माढरगोत्तं, कालगमवि गोयमं वंदे ॥३॥ गोयमगोत्तकुमारं, सप्पलयं तह य भद्दयं वंदे। थेरं च अज्जवई, गोयमगत्तं नमसामि ॥४॥ तं वंदिऊण सिरसा थिरचित्तचरितनाणसंपन्न । थेरं च संघवालिय कासवगोतं पणिवयामि ।।५।। वंदामि अज्जहत्थि च कासवं वंतिसागरं धीरं। गिहाण पढममासे, कालगयं चेव सुद्धस्स ॥६॥ वंदामि अज्जधम्मं च सुव्वयं सीललद्धिसंपन्न । जस्स निक्खमणे देवो छत्तं वरमुत्तमं वहइ ।।७।। हत्थं कासवगोतं धम्म सिवसाहगं पडिवयामि । सीह कासवगोत्तं धम्म पिय कासवं वंदे ।।८।। सुत्तत्थ रयणभरिए, खमदमभद्दवगुणेहिं संपन्ने।
देवडिखमासमणे कासवगोत्ते पणिवयामि ॥९।।* It is of course obvious that these gathās are added sometime after the second Valabhi council that met under the leadership of Devarddhi gani ksamāśramana. Possibly, the gathās refer in brief to the lineage to which belonged Devarddhi gani
ksamaśramana. 25. अहवादव्वायरिओ तिविहो-एगभविओबद्धाउओ अभिमुहणामगोत्तो, xxणिबद्धाउओ उजेण आउयं बद्धं,
अभिमुहणामगोत्तो जेण पदेसा उच्छूढा, अहया मूलगुणणिव्वत्तित्तो उत्तरगुणनिव्वत्तिओ य, सरीरं मूलगुणो, चित्तकम्मादि उत्तरगुणो, अहवा जाणओ भविओ वतिरित्तो, मंगुवायगाणं समुहवायगाणं नागहत्थिवायगाणं
जथासंखं आदेसो --- AVCH.I.p.585. 26. The Nandisutra edited by Muni Punyavijaya reads Ajjānandila and not Ajja Nandila
in the Nandi sthavirävali. The correct name probably was Arya Anandila, since the editors of the critical edition by Muni Punyavijaya, Dalshukh Malvania, and Amritlala Bhojak, give only one v.1.,3oonifact and do not read Ajja Nandila from any ms. referred to by them. One does not know when the name Arya Nandila came in currency. (could the Arya Nandi of the Dhavala-tīkä be Ārya Nandila or
Arya Anandita? --Editors) 27. See Hiralal Jain, the Satkhandägama Vol. I, "Intro.," pp. 49-50, the Dhavala,
अ०१४४०; theJayadhavalā, अ० १२३९; theDhavalā, अ० १४२९, १४५८; the Jayadhavala, अ०९७३. Also Hindi "Intro.," to Sarkhandāgama, Vol.II.p. 36.
*
We think that this hagiological list follows the sequential order. - Editors.

Page #16
178 U. P. Shah Jambu-jyoti Virasenasvami, in his marigalacarana to the Jayadhavala-tika, writes : जेणिह कसाय-पाहुडमणेयणयमुज्जलं अणंतत्थं / गाहाहि विवरियं तं गुणहरभडारयं वंदे // 6 // गुणहरवयण विणिग्गय गाहाणत्थोवहारिओ सव्वो। जेणज्जमखुणा सो सणागहत्थी वरंदेऊ // 7 // जो अज्जमंगुसीसो अंतेवासी विणागहत्थिस्स सो वित्तिसुत्तकत्ता जइवसहो मे वरं देऊ // 8 // –कसायप्राहुड, भा० 1, p. 4 Gunadhara composed the Kasayaprabhrta in gathas. Arya Markhu fully grasped the meaning of thegatha's uttered by Gunadhara. YativTsabha was the author of the Vsttisutra (curnisutra). Yativrsabha, according to Virasena, was the disciple of Arya Mangu and also disciple (antevasi) of Nagahasti. 28. See an. 26 where Av. Cur. p. 585 refers to Arya Mangu, Arya Samudra, and Arya Nagahasti as Vacaka. It is, then, certain that Arya Mangu of the Svetambara texts is identical wish Arya Manksu of the Dhavala and the Jayadhavala, etc. 29. According to the avacurion दु:षमाकाल श्रीश्रमणसंघस्तोत्र of धर्मघोष, वज्रस्वामी was acarya (head) for 36 years including wh. 584 years A. M. elapsed so वज्र =548 to 584 A. M. 21 to 57 A. D. or 71 to 127 A. D. (Jacobi). 000