________________
REMARKS ON THE TEXTS
of which is asserted to be particularly efficacious in securing her help.
In the "Pādalipta-carita" of the Prabhāvakacarita' too, a “Vairotyā Devi', obviously the very same goddess, is referred to, for she bears the epithet of "PhaņIndra-kântā”, and is described as an attendant of Pīrsvanātha, the patron saint of the snake-king.
Yet it is difficult to understand how this Vairotyā, who is thus supposed to have lived and died as a human being during the life-time of Aryanandila, i.e. roughly in the former half of the second century after Vikrama, and to have been a snake deity and Dharanendra's consort only since then, could be identical with Mallinātha's Sāsana-devī. For, as all the Śāsanadevas and -devīs are believed to come into existence during the time of the "tīrtha," 1. c. the original community of the resp. Tirthankara," Mallinātha's Śīsana-devi would have been in existence since more than 65,86,000 years, Mallinātha's nirvāņa being assumed to have taken place 65,84,000 years before the Vira-nirvāņa.
Did the great Hemacandra allow himself to be misled by the chance identity of the name of Mallinātha's Sāsana-devi with that of Aryanandila's "Istadevatā”, and thus wrongly apportioned to the former goddess the epithet of "Dharana-priyā”, to which only her namesake was entitled ? This seems likely in view of the already mentioned absence of all snake attributes in Mallinātha's Sāsana-devī: for, a consort of Dharanendra would necessarily belong to the class of the
(1) L. 1., p. 28 f. (2) Cp. Muni Kalyāṇavijaya. loc. cit.
(3) Cp. Nirvonakalika, 1. c., p. 34 ff., particularly the regularly recurring attribute of the "Yakşipis" : "tasminneva tirthe samutpannā").
69
