________________
OCTOBER, 1891.]
TWO PATTAVALIS OF THE SARASVATI GACHCHHA.
359
The bracketed numbers are those actually given in the Gaths. It will be seen that the final date, i.e., 683 A. V., results equally from the summation of the several single successions as well as from the summation of the totals of the six periods. Yet the two series of mainbers. as given in the Gâthâs, do not agree with one another; and this in two respects. First, the given total of the II Ird period (183) does not agree with the real total (181) of the several successions ; so again the given total of the Vth period (97) does not ngree with its real total (99); nor does the given total of the two periods IV and V (220) ngieo with their real total (222). Yet if the three periods (Nos. III, IV, and V), are totalled, the result (103) comes out correctly, because the errors in the totals of periods III and V (being 2 in each) neutralise one another. Secondly, all the actual dates, given in the Gatlas (vis, 62, 162, 565, 083 A. V.). agree with the numbers given for the several successions, except the date 3:45 A. V. which agrees with the given total (i.e. 183 of the II Iril period), and which produces it wrony final date 685 A. V. This would seem to show that that date (i., 35 A, V.) as well as the given totals for the periods III and V are wrong. Another significant fact is to be observed. This versos, in their present state, do not give the date of the IV th period. It is the only date which is omitted : and the verse in which one would expect it, is the only verse which is not a gátlá but a álóka. The occurrence of a slska in the midst of a series of Gáthis is an extraordinary thing; and one cannot help suspecting that the verse as it originally stood was a Gåtha containing the missing date ; that the date was either accidentally or intentionally omitted ; and that the remnant of the mutilated Gatha was then turned into a élóka, the latter being of shorter dimensions than a Gatha.
As to the cause of the confusion, I will give my own conjecture, for what it may be worth. I believe it arose from an attempt at reconciling two conflicting traditions. One of these traditions is contained in the Gâthâs, which the pattivali quotes. This tradition gives four items of information : 1, the duration of each pontificate down to 983 A. V.; 2, the daration of each of the six periods, down to the same date; 3, the date of the termination of each period; 4, certain dates of Vikrama's life, especially those of his birth and accession. Side by side with this older tradition there appears to bave been another, much later one, for which tho authority of no Gâthå is quoted and which is only given in the vernacular commentary. This later tradition enumerates a set of four synchronisms, referring to Bhadrabahu's accession, with whom the pastavalt proper of the Sarasvati Gachchha commences ;07 vis , :1, that the year of Bhadrabahu's accession is the 24th after Sabhadra's accession; 2, that it is the 22nd after Vikrama's birth; 3, that it is also the 4th after Vikrama's accession; and 4, that the year of Vikrama's birth is the 2nd after Subhadra's accession. The calcalation starts with the year of Vikrama's birth as a fixed point. He was born in 470 A. V. ; this year is the 2nd after Subhadra's accession ; accordingly the latter took place in 468 (i.e. 463-69 A. V.). Bhadrabahu's accession took place 24 years after Subhadra's accession; accordingly Bhadraba ha succeeded to the pontificate in 492 (i.e., 492-93) A. V. The latter year accordingly is the 22nd after Vikrama's birth i.e., 470 + 22 = 492); it is also the 4th year after Vikrama's accession to the throne; accordingly Vikrama's accession took place in 488 (i.e., 488-89) A. V. or in the 18th year of Vikrama's life (i.e. 470 +18=488). Having thus calculated 492 A. V. to be the year of Bhadrabahu's, and 468 A. V. to be the year of Subhadra's accession, this result was found to collide with the older tradition of the Gåthås. For calculating backwards from the year 468 A. V., and subtracting 123 years i.e. the daration of the IV th period), the year 345 A. V. was obtained as the terminal year of the IIIrd period. On the other hand, calculating forward, from the data supplied by the Gâthâs, the year 313 A. V. resulted as the terminal year. To avoid this discrepancy, I sappose, the original text of the Gåthis was tampered with, and the duration of the third period changed from 181 to 183, and its terminal year changed from 343 A. V. to 34.5 A. V., forgetting, however, that thus the dates given by the Gathås were rendered inconsistent
07 It may be that this later tradition is peculiar to that Gachchha alone. Whether or not this is so, would be interesting to know. At present, however, I believe, no pattávali of any other Digambara Gachchha is known.
