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 Sthaviravalis 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 Mathura 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 sthaviravalis has to be correlated and we have to see if we can fix, with the help of these sthaviravalis, 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 Luders 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 sthaviravalis in the Paryusana-kalpa and the Nandi-sutra 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 Rajgir (Fig. 1)3. The inscription generally is interpreted as meaning: "Muni Vairadeva, the jewel among the acaryas (and) of great lustre, caused to be made, for obtaining nirvana, two auspicious caves which are worthy of ascetics and in which were placed the images of the arhats (i. e. tirthankaras)." 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 Acarya Vairadeva had both the caves excavated and images installed therein. A student of Jaina canonical literature and the pattavalis would immediately see that 'acaryaratnam Muni Vairadevah of great lustre' can be none else than the great acarya Arya Vajra, sthavira Arya 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 Mahavira's nirvanas. (According to Harmann Yacobi's corrected date for Mahavira's nirvana, 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 Nagarjuni 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 Svetambara* Arya Vajra and they suggested that the caves belong to the Digambara sect. There is no acarya Vaira known to any Digambara pattavali 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. Arya Vajra had a disciple called Vajrasena. Vajrasena, according to the medieval Svetambara tradition ordinated some monk-disciples at Surparaka (modern Sopara near Bombay)". Out of these four disciples started the four ancient kulas (orders of Jaina monks), namely; Nagendra, Candra, Vidyadhara and Nirvrtti. Arya Vajra, the preceptor of Arya Vajrasena, is reported to have visited the Abhira country10, Daksinapatha11 and Srimala, modern Bhinmala in Marvad)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 (Vajri) sakha, known from some Jaina inscriptions from the Mathura Stupa, originated from Arya Vajra (Pkt. Vaira) according to the Sthaviravali of the Paryusana-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, Sudama, 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 acaryas (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-vasa. Usually, the Jaina friars do not stay in Jaina shrines. Vajra-svami or Arya Vajra, a great knower of the Jaina canon and a jewel amongst the acaryas, was an innovator and reformer. I had discussed this inscription with the late Muni Punyavijayji. He had informed me that, according to the Svetambara Jaina traditional beliefs, Vajra-svami (Arya Vajra) started certain practices which are characteristic of the caityavasi monks. Later, there was degradation amongst the caityavasi monks but, in the beginning, the caityavasa 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 Sthaviravalis 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 Svetambaras being acknowledged as owners of this and other sites at Rajgir. But this inscription about Arya Vajra (who is known to the early pattavalis inherited by the Svetambaras) refers to the times when the Svetambara-Digambara schism did not originate nor had the difference about Svetambara and Digambara images in worship come.18 We may next turn to the other problematic epigraphs. Two inscriptions from Jaina stupa at Kankali Tila, Mathura, especially are intersting as they refer to a Jaina acarya well-known to us from the pattavalis and other Jaina texts. The first dated in the year 52 (=A. D. 130), on the pedestal of a broken image, was published by Buhler in "Further Inscriptions From Mathura", inscription no. 18, Epigraphia Indica, Vol. II (reprinted ed.), pp. 203-204. The second edited by Buhler in EI., Vol. I., pp. 391, no. 21, as inscribed on the pedestal of a headless image of Sarasvati (fig. 2) from Kankali Tila, Mathura. This is dated in the year 54 (=A. D. 132).* Luders discussed them again in the Indian Antiquary, Vol. XXXIII. pp.104f. Transcripts of Buhler's readings, placed side by side, are also reproduced there (fig.). Buhler 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 sura, the son of sramanaka, at the request of the preacher Arya Divita, (who is) the convert of the gani Arya Manguhasti (and) pupil of the preacher Arya Ghastuhasti out of the Kotiya gana, the Vera (Vajra) *The new date for the beginning of the Kusana 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
Jambu-jyoti sakha, the Sthanikiya kula, and the Srigrha 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 Buhler'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 Luders 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, Luders' 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 Arya Deva (who is) convert of gani Arya Maghahasti, the pupil of vacaka Arya Hastahasti out of the Koliya (Kautika) gana, Sthanikiya kula, Vajri Sakha, Srigrha 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. Gana, kula, sakha, 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-sutra1. The Nandi-sutra-sthaviravali 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 Svati of Harita gotra was succeeded by Arya Syama of Harita gotra. The latter is followed by Arya Sandilla (Sandilya) of Kausika gotra, succeeded by Arya Jitadhara and Arya Samudra whose word was regarded as authority in islands and beyond the three oceans (vss. 26, 27). As I have elsewhere shown, Arya Syama is Arya Kalaka of the Kalakacarya-kathas

Page #7
Correlation of Jaina Inscriptions with Sthaviravalis 169 and Arya Samudra is his grandpupil Arya Sagara sramana of the same Kalaka-kathas20 Next, in vs. 28, Arya Mangu is paid respects in the following words : Bhanagam karagam jharagam pabhavagam nana-damsanagunanam vandami Ajja-Manguin suyasagaraparagam dhiram 128|| The above-cited gatha shows how great a sthavira the Arya Mangu was. He was a pontiff of great virtues of jnana and darsana, a great personality who could impress upon others (and who had superhuman powers, the pabhavaga=prabhavaka one who had crossed the ocean of canonical learning (srutasagara-paraga]). These inscriptions show that Arya Mangu belonged to Vera or Vaira, i.e. Vajra or Vajri sakha. Origin of this sakha, according to the Sthaviravali of the Paryusana-kalpa (according to its vistrta-vacana), is as under : "From the two sthaviras of the Vyaghrapatya line, Susthita (alias Kotika) and Supratibuddha (alias Kakandaka) branched out the gana named Kotika which had four sakhas and four kulas. What were the sakhas ? They were : First, Uccanagari, and then Vidyadhari, Vajri, Madhyamika--such were the four sakhas of the gana named Kotika." Arya Mangu or Arya Maghahasti belonged to this Vajri sakha. The two inscriptions discussed in the foregoing refer to this Vajri or Vera or Vaira sakha derived from Arya Vajra who was a pupil of sthavira Arya Sihagiri (Simhagiri), jatismara of the Kausika gotra, as the Sthaviravali tells us in su.11. This sthavira Arya Sihagiri and sthavira Arya santi-sainika (= santisena ?) were the two disciples of Sthavira Aryadatta who was a disciple of sthavira Arya Indradatta who himself was a disciple of sthavira Arya Supratibuddha alias Kakandaka. Both Susthita (alias Kautika) and Supratibuddha (alias Kakandika) were disciples of Arya Suhasti. We know from other sources that Sthavira Arya 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, santinika-kula, an the Vajri sakha in the inscription which is dated in the year 17 of Kaniska, which proves that both Arya Santinika, the contemporary of Arya Sihagiri and Arya Vajra, the pupil of Sihagiri lived before the year 17 of Kaniska, since Vajri sakha 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 Vajri sakha, it would show that Manguhasti or Maghahasti flourished later than Arya Vajra23 Now, if this Maghahasti is the same as Arya Mangu, then Arya Mangu is later than Arya Vajra. But the Tapagaccha-pattavali, says saptasastyadhikacatuhsatavarse 467 Arya Manguh. But the same Tapagaccha Pattavali (composed in V. S. 1696 = A. D. 1639-40) says the following about Vayarasami (Vajrasvami) : terasamo vayarasAmi gurU / vyAkhyA - terasamo tti zrIsIhagiripaTTe trayodazaH zrIvajrasvAmI ryA bAlyAdapi jAtismRtibhAk, nabhogamanavidyayA saMgharakSAkRta, dakSiNasyAM bauddharAjye jinendrapUjAnimittaM puSpAdyAnayanena pravacanaprabhAvanAkRt, devAbhivaMdito dazapUrvavidAmapazcimo vajrazAkhotpattimUlam / tathA sa bhagavAn SaNNavatyadhikacatuHzata 496 varSAnte jAtaH san aSTau 8 varSANi gRhe, catuzcatvAriMzat 44 varSANi vrate SaTtriMzat 36 varSANi yugapra0, sarvAyuraSTAzIti varSANi paripAlya zrI vIrAt caturazItyadhikapaMcazata 584 varSAnte svargabhAk / zrI vajrasvAmino dazapUrva-caturthasaMhanasaMsthAnAnAM vyucchedaH / catuSkulasamutpattipitAmahamahaM vibhum / dazapUrvavidhi (daM) vande vajrasvAmimunIzvaram / / -paTTAvalI-samuccaya, part 1, p. 47 But we must remember that, just as Kautika or Kotika gana had a Veri or Vairi or Vajri sakha, Varana gana had a Hattikiya kula (corrected by Luders as Arya Halakiya kula) with Vajranagari sakha, mentioned in a Jaina Inscription from Mathura dated Samvat 4, vide Luders' Inscr. no. 16. Thus Veri or Vairi and Vajranagari 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, Brahmadasika kula, and Uchenagari Sakha. These are also referred to in Luders' Inscriptions nos. 19 and 20 of Samvat 5. The Uccainagari sakha emanated from Arya Santisenia according to the vistrta vacana of the Paryusanakalpa Sthaviravali. This Santinika was contemporary, senior confrere of Sihagiri (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 Uccenagari sakha said to have been started under Arya santinika.

Page #9
Correlation of Jaina Inscriptions with Sthaviravalis 171 On the analogy of the name Uccena gari (of the city Uccenagara-modern Bulandas'ahara)+ shall we suppose that there was a place called Vajranagara from which was derived the Vajranagari sakha ? Arya Mangu was a famous and revered pontiff having considerable/ proficiency in sruta or the Jaina Canon and was a prabhavaka acarya. The Himavanta Sthaviravali (supposed to be spurious) says that Arya Mangu was a pupil of Arya Samudra. In this context we must note the order of gathas of the Nandisutra Sthaviravali : hAriyagattaM sAiMca, vaMdimo hAriyaM ca sAmajjaM / vande kosiyagottaM saMDilaM ajjajIyadharaM / / 26 // tisamuddakhAyakitti dIvasamuddesu gahiyapeyAlaM / vande ajjasamudaM akkhubhiyasamuddagaMbhIraM / / 27|| bhaNagaM karagaM jharagaM pabhAvagaMNANadaMsaNaguNANaM / vaMdAmi ajjamaMgU suyasAgarapAragaM dhIraM / / 28 / / Next come two verses which are not commented upon by the author of the Nandi curni nor by Haribhadra suri in his commentary and which are not found in all manuscripts of theNandisutra. Editors of thePattavali-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-sutra published by the Mahavira Jaina Vidyalaya these were not accepted as verses of the original text and are treated as doubtful. They are : vaMdAmi ajjadhamma, vaMde tatto a bhaddaguttaM ca / tatto a ajjavayaraM, tavaniyamaguNehi vayarasamaM / / vaMdAmi ajjarakkhia-khamaNe rakkhiacaritta svvsse| rayaNakaraMDagabhUo, aNuogo rakkhio jehiM / / -paTTAvalI samuccaya, I. p. 13. Then we have : nANammi daMsaNammi ya tavaviNae NiccakAlamujjuttaM / ajjAnaMdilakhamaNaM, zirasA vaMde pasannamaNaM // 29 // -NaMdisutta, (Bombay ed p. 6) + Ucchera in M.P. according to Sagarmal Jain.-Editors.

Page #10
172 U. P. Shah Jarnbu-jyoti The Tapagaccha-Pattavali 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 Mathura inscriptions speak of Arya Manguhasti or Maghahasti as belonging to Vairi sakha, we have to presume that he was either later than Arya Vajra or was his junior contemporary or that the Vairi sakha to which Maghahsti belonged had started before Arya Vajra if the dates of Arya Mangu (467 years after Mahavira) and of Arya Vajra (years 496 to 584 after Mahavira) given by the Tapagaccha 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-sthaviravali, Arya Mangu succeeded Arya Samudra as 'Vacaka-mukhya', the Nandi-sthaviravali concerns itself with the Vacakas. Arya Mangu's active association with Mathura is supported by several texts. Hence it is reasonable to regard Arya Mangu of literary works and Arya Manguhasti or Maghahasti of the two Mathura 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 Mathura (Nis. Bh. 3200. Nis. Cu. II. pp. 125-26; III. p. 142. Av. Cu. II. p. 80. NanM. p. 50. GacV. p. 31.). He had a different opinion regarding dravyacarya (Av. Cu. I. p. 585. Brhm. p. 144. Vyabh. 6. 239 ff.)25. Samudda was his preceptor and Nandila26 his disciple (Nan. 28, 29). In the "Pratikramana adhyayana" of the Avasyaka curni, while referring to the pratikramana of three types of gaurava-viradhana, the story is given of Arya Mangu, a Jaina monk who was reborn as a Yaksa in Mathura on account of egoism : xxx fayfa 3Gibu HET 3 323i fractica Dakkato kAlaM kAtuM maharAe NiddhavaNajakkho uvavaNNo, tAhe jakkhAyataNassa adareNa sAhaNo bobeMtANaM jakkhapaDimaM aNupavisituM jIhaM nillAleti, evaM aNNadAvi kate sAdhUhiM pucchito bhaNati-ahaM so pAvakammo ajjamaMgU jIhAdoseNa ettha uvavaNNo taM mA tubbhe gAravapahibaddhA viddhaMdhasA hohiha, etehiMgAravehi jo me Hra cosa I Av. Cu. I. p. 80. The Nisitha curni calls him a bahusruta, well-versed in canon, and having a large group of disciples : 774 FA IGTESUT - "Javiet" er "" madhurA maMgU Agama bahusuya veraga saDapUyA-ya / sAtAdi-lobha-Nitie, maraNe johAi NiddhamaNe / / 3200 / /

Page #11
Correlation of Jaina Inscriptions with Sthaviravalis 173 ajjamaMgU AyariyA bahussuyA ajjhAgamA bahusissaparivArA ujjayavihAriNo te viharatA mahuraM NagarI gatA / te "veraggiya"tti kAuM saDDehiM vatthAtiehi ghUitA, khIra-dadhi-ghaya-gulAtiehi diNe diNe pajjatieNa patilAbhayaMti / so Ayariyo lobheNa sAtAsokkhapaDibaddho Na viharati / Nitigro jAto / sesA sAdhU viharitA / so vi aNAloiya paDikaMto vihAriyasAmaNNo vaMtaro NiddhamaNA jakkho jAto / xxxx sAhUhiM pucchito bhaNAti-sohaM ajjamaMgU iDrisapamAdagaruo mariUNa NiddhamaNe jaskho jAto, taM mA koi tubbhe evaM lobhadosaM karejja / / 3200 --Nisitha curni (Agra, 1958), Vol-li Su.43, 4109-111.3200, pp. 152-153. Also see ibid., p. 125. The Digambara author Svami Virasena (A. D. 817), in his commentary, the Dhavala on the Satkhandagama of Puspadanta and Bhutabali, and acarya Jinasena (A. D. 837) who finished his guru Virasena's incomplete commentary, the Jayadhavala, on the ancient Kasaya-pahuda-sutta and Yati-Vrsabha's curni on the Kasaya-Pahuda, repeatedly cite Mahavacaka Arya Nagahasti ksamasramana, Mahavacaka Arya Manksu ksamasramana, and Mahavacaka Arya Nandi ksamasramana27. Prof. Hiralal Jain, the editor of the Satkhandagama, identifies Mahavacaka Nagahasti and Mahavacaka Manksu with Arya Nagahasti and Arya Mangu of the Sthaviravali of the Vacakas of the Svetambara tradition given in the Nandi sutra of Deva vacaka (c. A. D. 450)28. We have shown above that, according to the archaeological evidence of the two inscriptions from Mathura, Arya Maghahasti (identified with Arya Mangu as earlier shown) is later than Arya Vajra since Mangu belonged to Vajri-sakha. This goes against the dates given in the Commentary on the Tapagaccha-pattavali. Under the circumstances, we have to reject the late literary evidence of the Commentry on the Tapagaccha pattavali. 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 Mahavira's nirvana as 477 B. C. following Jacobi. Thus Arya 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 Kusana 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 Kusana era.* We have to remember that there are two types of inscriptions from Mathura. 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 Kusana 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 Mathura. If identification of the acaryas named in these inscriptions and finding out of their age from the sthaviravalis 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. nirvana) 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 stupa. Similarly, in the Vasantagadh Jaina bronze inscription of Samvat 744 (A. D. 688), it is said that the silpin Sivanaga 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 Trisastisalakapurusacarita. According to the Vicarasreni of Merutungacarya (Ancalagacchiya : late 14th cent. A. D.) and the Duhsamakala-samanasanghatthava, of Dharmaghosa suri (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 Sthaviravalis 175 calculated as Virat 548-584, i.e., A. D., 21-57; vide Muni Nathmalji, "Jaina Darsana Manana aur Mimamsa, (Hindi), App.I.p.63. This of course would be the date of Arya Vajra as acarya or as head of the group of monks. Also cf. M. D. Desai, Jaina Sahitya no Samksipta Itihasa (Gujarati), 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. Darsanavijaya, "Guruparvakrama" of Gunaratnasuri, p. 26, andSr Tapagaccha Pattavali, pp. 47-48, and the Kalpa-sutra sthaviravali, p. 8. 10. Avasyaka-curni, pp.396-397. 11. Ibid., p. 404. 12. Avasyaka-tika, 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 : nirvANalAbhAya tapasviyogye zubhe guhe'rhnprtimaaprtisstthe| AcAryaratnaM munivaradevo vimuktaye'kArayat uuddhtejaaH|| The Normal prose order is : AcAryaratna UDhatejA munivaradevo nirvANalAbhAya vimuktaye(ca) tapasviyogye zubhe 'hatpratimApratiSThe guhe'kaaryt| The new suggested prose order is : AcAryaratna UDhatejA munivairadevo nirvANalAbhAya vimuktaye(ca) zubhe guhe'rhatpratimApratiSThe''kArayat / The Roots of Indian Art, p. 202. Luders' List of Brahmi 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 Sthaviravali is given in sutra 6 of the critically edited Nandi-sutra, pp. 68, vss 23-24, Mahavira Jaina Vidyalaya, Bombay 1968, Edsn. Muni Punyavijaya, Pt. Malavaniya, and Pt. A. M. Bhojaka. 20. "Suvarnabhumi me Kalakacarya" (Hindi) published in Sri Vijaya Vallabha-suri Smaraka Grantha, Bombay 1956. Also see, U. P. Shah, "Kalakacarya-A Revolutionary Jaina Monk," Bharati (Journal, B.H.U.) forthcoming issue as R.C. Majumdar Commemoration Volume; and "Jaina Anusrutis About Kalaka" Journal of Indian Museums, 1959. 21. K.D., Bajpai, "Three New Kushana Inscriptions from Mathura," Jaina Antiquary, VOL.XVI. no.1. pp. 13-16. 22. M. A., Dhaky, "A Propos of the Santinika Kula of Kautika Gana," Bharati, New Series no.2, (Varanasi) 984, pp. 149-151. 23. The other alternative is that the Vairisakha 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. Naga-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 Paryusana-kalpa sthaviravali a few verses in the end after the prose Sthaviravali ending with Phalgumitra, the disciple of Arya Pusyamitra; also the disciple of Arya Ratha who was a disciple of Arya Vajrasena, in tum the disciple of Arya Vajra. Amongst these nine 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 : vaMdAmi phaggamittaM ca goyamaMdhaNagiriMca vaasidai| kocchaM sivabhaI piya, kosiya dojjaMtakaNhe y||2|| taM vaMdiUNa sirasA, cittaM vadAmi kAssavaM gotaM / nakkhaM kAsavagotaM, rakkhaM piya kAsavaM vNdesh|

Page #15
Correlation of Jaina Inscriptions with Sthaviravalis 177 vaMdAmi ajjanAgaM ca goyamaM ca jehilaM ca vaasittuN| viNhuM mADharagottaM, kAlagamavi goyamaM vaMde // 3 // goyamagottakumAraM, sappalayaM taha ya bhaddayaM vNde| theraM ca ajjavaI, goyamagattaM namasAmi // 4 // taM vaMdiUNa sirasA thiracittacaritanANasaMpanna / theraM ca saMghavAliya kAsavagotaM paNivayAmi / / 5 / / vaMdAmi ajjahatthi ca kAsavaM vaMtisAgaraM dhiirN| gihANa paDhamamAse, kAlagayaM ceva suddhassa // 6 // vaMdAmi ajjadhammaM ca suvvayaM sIlaladdhisaMpanna / jassa nikkhamaNe devo chattaM varamuttamaM vahai / / 7 / / hatthaM kAsavagotaM dhamma sivasAhagaM paDivayAmi / sIha kAsavagottaM dhamma piya kAsavaM vaMde / / 8 / / suttattha rayaNabharie, khamadamabhaddavaguNehiM sNpnne| devaDikhamAsamaNe kAsavagotte paNivayAmi // 9 / / * It is of course obvious that these gathas are added sometime after the second Valabhi council that met under the leadership of Devarddhi gani ksamasramana. Possibly, the gathas refer in brief to the lineage to which belonged Devarddhi gani ksamasramana. 25. ahavAdavvAyario tiviho-egabhaviobaddhAuo abhimuhaNAmagotto, xxNibaddhAuo ujeNa AuyaM baddhaM, abhimuhaNAmagotto jeNa padesA ucchUDhA, ahayA mUlaguNaNivvattitto uttaraguNanivvattio ya, sarIraM mUlaguNo, cittakammAdi uttaraguNo, ahavA jANao bhavio vatiritto, maMguvAyagANaM samuhavAyagANaM nAgahatthivAyagANaM jathAsaMkhaM Adeso --- AVCH.I.p.585. 26. The Nandisutra edited by Muni Punyavijaya reads Ajjanandila and not Ajja Nandila in the Nandi sthaviravali. 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-tika be Arya Nandila or Arya Anandita? --Editors) 27. See Hiralal Jain, the Satkhandagama Vol. I, "Intro.," pp. 49-50, the Dhavala, a01440; theJayadhavala, a0 1239; theDhavala, a0 1429, 1458; the Jayadhavala, a0973. Also Hindi "Intro.," to Sarkhandagama, 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 : jeNiha kasAya-pAhuDamaNeyaNayamujjalaM aNaMtatthaM / gAhAhi vivariyaM taM guNaharabhaDArayaM vaMde // 6 // guNaharavayaNa viNiggaya gAhANatthovahArio svvo| jeNajjamakhuNA so saNAgahatthI varaMdeU // 7 // jo ajjamaMgusIso aMtevAsI viNAgahatthissa so vittisuttakattA jaivasaho me varaM deU // 8 // -kasAyaprAhuDa, bhA0 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 du:SamAkAla zrIzramaNasaMghastotra of dharmaghoSa, vajrasvAmI was acarya (head) for 36 years including wh. 584 years A. M. elapsed so vajra =548 to 584 A. M. 21 to 57 A. D. or 71 to 127 A. D. (Jacobi). 000