________________
68
.
used the above term as descriptive of the Nigautha creed unless they had heard it from followers of Parsva, and they would not liave used it if the reforms of Mahavira had already been generally adopter hy the Niganthas at the time of the Buddla. I, therefore, look on this blunder of the Buddhists as a proof for the correctness of the Gaina tradition, that followers of Parsva actually existed at the time of Mahavira.'' P. XXI Intro.
(ii) “Before following up this line of inquiry. I have to call attention to another significant blunder of the Buddhists: they call Nataputta an Aggivesana, i.e. Agnivaisyayana; according to the (ainas, however, he was a Kasyapa, and we may credit them in such particulars about their owu Tirthakara. But Sucharman, his chief disciple, who in the Sutras is made the expounder of his creed. was an Agnivaisyayana, and as he played a prominent part in the propagation of the Gaina religion, the disciple inay often have been confounded by outsiders with the inaster, so that tlie Gotra of the former was erroneously assigned to the latter. Thus ly a double blunder the Buddhists attest the existence of Mahavir's predecessor Parsva and of liis chief disciple Sudharmau." P. XXI ibid.
. (ii) “That Parsya was a luistorical person, is now. adınitted by all as very probable ; indeed his followers, especially. Kesi who seems to have
