________________
342
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[Остовев, 1891.
who was living in Jaipur when Mr. Bendall visited that town in 1885. The entries Nos. 101 and 102, however, are in a different handwriting; and the original manuscript appears to have closed with No. 100, Naina Kirti, who ascended in Samvat 1879 (A. D. 1822), and accordingly must have been written some time between Samvat 1879 and Samvat 1883 (A. D. 1826) when the 101st Pontiff, Dêvêndra Kirti, succeeded to the chair. The original of MS. A, on the other hand, must have been written some time soon after Samvat 1840 (A. D. 1783).
The two manuscripts do not cover quite the same ground. They give the pattâvalis of two different sections of the same main line. The two sections separated after the 87th pontiff of the common line. According to a remark in MS. A, the actual separation would seem to have taken place in Samvat 1572 (A. D. 1515), when one section appears to have removed to Någor, while the other continued to reside in Chitôr, the seat of pontificate of the 87th common pontiff. The latter, according to MS. A, was Jinachandra, the successor of Prabhâchandra; while, according to MS. B, it was the latter under whom the separation took place, and whose predecessor was Jinachandra. Whatever the true case may have been, it seems, according to both manuscripts, that the two sections continued their allegiance to the 87th pontiff till the latter's death in Samvat 1581 (A. D. 1524), when each section elected its own separate head, and henceforth the two sections carried on their own separate paṭṭâvalls. Of these, MS. A probably gives the patta vall of the Nâgôr section, while MS. B seems to give that of the Chîtôr section. This attribution, however, is, for the present, only inferential. It is certain that the two patțâvalis of MSS. A and B diverge after the 87th pontiff, ander whom the separation is said by MS. A to have taken place. I presume that the line of pontiffs given by MS. A migrated to Någôr, until they removed their residence to Ajmir, where they are found to be at the time of the 106th pontiff. The line, given in MS. B, would then be the section, which continued to reside in Chîtôr, the seat of the 87th pontiff, until later on they removed to Jaipur, which is their present place of residence. The point is, perhaps, not one of any great importance, and may be cleared up hereafter.
The common line (anvaya) of both sections is that of Kundakunda, the fifth pontiff of the Sarasvati Gachohha. Hence that Gachchha is known also as the Kundakundanvaya.. The reason of this appellation is not quite clear. Kundakunda is stated to have had four other names, Padmanandin, Vakragriva, Gridhrapichchha and Elâchârya. In Professor Peterson's list his principal name is given as Padmanandin. Perhaps there was some circumstance of sufficient importance connected with his eponym Kundakunda, which caused the latter to be perpetuated in an appellation of the Gachchha which he had adorned. The founder of this Gachchha was Maghanandin, one of the four disciples of Guptigupta, each of whom founded a separate Gachchha. From him are derived two names of the Gachchha; viz., Nandi Sangha and Nandi Amnaya. The word ámnáya," according to Hemachandra's Anêkârtha Sangraha, is a synonym of kula (or kulakrama), and the appellation, accordingly, means "the generations" or successions" of Nandi. A fourth name by which the Gachchha is known is Balatkara Gana." The reason of this name is not known. I would venture to suggest, however, the following explanation. The second pontiff of the Gachchha was Guptigupta. He is stated to have had two other names, Arhadbalin or "he who possesses the power of an Arhat," and Visâkhâcharya. I would suggest that the Gachchha may have derived its name of Balâtkâra or "the powerful" Gana from its ancestor Arhadbalin. The origin of the name would then be analogous to that of Kundakundânvaya. As a Gachchha, the line of pontiffs is distinguished by the term Sarasvati; this name it seems to have received from the miracle of the pontiff Padmanandin, who is said to have made a stone figure of Sarasvati to speak (see below No. 83 of
Ce
The MS. has the term abhava for 'name' (P. su-nama), which I do not understand. Is it perhaps a clerical
error for prabhava?
Another synonymous Jain term is santana, which occurs in the paṭṭavall of the Upakééa Gachchha, published se, Vol. XIX, p. 233.
The words gana and gachchha, as Muni Atmár&mjt informs me, are synonymous.
