Epigraphia Indica Vol 04

Author(s): E Hultzsch
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India

Page 35

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
(VOL. IV.
really are. And, in doing so, I will incorporate some notes on it published by Dr. Leumann in the Vienna Oriental Journal, Vol. VII. p. 382 ff. The record opens with some verses in praise of Vardhamana, the last of the Jain Terthamkaras (died, B. O. 543, or thereabouts),- otherwise called Mahavira (by which name he is mentioned again in line 3),- whose doctrines, it says, were still flourishing at Vikala, .e. Ujjain. The remainder of it is in prose; And, as pointed out by Dr. Leumann, this portion of it is to be divided into two parts. The first part, from the beginning of line 3 to the word práptavan in line 6, forms, as he says, & sort of historical introduction. First it sketches, in outline and imperfectly, the succession of Jain teachers who came after Vardhamana. It names first his Ganadhara Gautama, one of the three Kévalins. Naming also the other two Kévalins, it calls them LôhArya, the “veritable disciple" (of Vardbamâna), and Jambu: the latter is the Jambûsvåmin of the usual list :1 the former name, Lôharya, however, appears as a surprise, taking the place of the well-known Sudharma of the usual list; and all that can be said with certainty at present, is, that it is unmistakably given in this record. Next, it names four of the five Sruta-Képalins - Vishnudeva (Vishņunandin of the usual nomenclature), Aparajita, Govardhana, and Bhadrabahu I. (died somewhere about B.C. 380). Then it mentions seven of the eleven Datapúrvadharins,- Visakha, Proshthila, Křittikärya (the usual name is Kshatriyâchårya), Jayanaman (usually called Jayasênacharya), Siddhartha, Dhritishépe, and Buddhils (= Buddhilingáchârya; died about B.C. 230). And finally it names a person, Bhadrabhusvåmin, who is evidently intended to stand at some appreciable interval of time after the last of the previously mentioned persons,-for, the record says, there were other teachers, left unnamed, between Buddhila and him, and who is, in fact, to be identified with the Minor-Angin Bhadrabdhu II., who, according to the pattavalis, became pontiff in B.C. 53. This person, it says, at Ujjain, announced a period of difficulty that should last twelve years. And in consequence of this announcement, it continues, the entire samgha or community left Northern India and came to the South, and eventually arrived at a populons, rich, and flourishing country - meaning, apparently, the
it with my statement of the che in the Ind. Ant. Vol. XXI. p. 156 ff., to reproduce which here, would be to occupy great deal of valuable space unnecessarily. I have not the slightest doubt w to what verdict will be given by anyone who can himself read and understand the present record. As regards Mr. Rios, it is useless to attempt to argue the matter any further with one who can believe, as he does, that the reading in line 6 is Prabhdchandrégedm-drani, etc.: not only is that rending one which would have to be atended if it did exist, but it is actually non existent; it does not exist even in Mr. Rice's lithograpb.-He would have us now onderstand that the true reading had suggested itself to him; for he says that his footnote to bis translation is sufficieat to shew that he was aware that the reading adopted by him was not free from doubt. The only footnote that I can find, on the point in question, runs (Inscriptions at Sroraya-Belgola, p. 116, note 7). "The construction is stated to be Prabdehandropa + amd + Granitala eto, [amisha mipd eba-mara-Kbia.]" And I do not see in this any bint of a recognition of the true reading, Prabhdehandro ndodoenitala, eto. But, if the true reading did suggest itself to bim, it becomes utterly incomprebensible that he should reject it in favour of the absurdities that he has written.- Mr. Rice has now suggested that the name of Guptigupta-(for this person, see page 86 below)-bu not leaked out" anywhere else than in the paffdvalle, and that there is no other trace of it. But, ma pointed out by me plainly enough (Ind. Ant. Vol. XXL p. 169, noto 8), it actually had come to notice, from Mysore itself, and through Mr. Rice himself, in the Kadab grant, which purports to be dated in A.D. 813 in the reign of the Rashtrakata king Govinda III., and which expressly mentions the "Gupts gupta-www-orinda or body of saints (i.6. community) of Guptigupta" (Ind. Auf, Vol. XIL. P. 16, line 1). By one of his otber names, Arbadbalin, be is mentioned in looal record of A.D. 1897-98 (Imeription af Śravana-Belgola, No. 106), which apparently describes him as establishing a four-fold division of the saigha.
See, for instance, Dr. R. G. Bhandarkar's Report on Sanskrit M88. for 1883-84, p. 124 1.; also, the pattavalle pobliebed by Dr. Hoernle in the Ind. Ant. Vol. XXI. p. 841 d., and Vol. XXII. p. 67 R.; slao, list published by Prof. Peterson in his Second Report on Sanskrit X88., wbloh, however, I have not at hand for reference.
It seems just possible, however, that it is the name, misplaced, of the Minor.digis Lobellrya I, who came next after Bhadrubibu 11. (nee, ..., Ind. Ant. Vol. XX. p. 849, and Vol. XXI. pp. 68, 70).
* See page 28 bel..w, note 3.