________________
300
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[OCTOBER, 1892.
painnas, or pratyêkabuddhas84 [16] as he possessed scholars endowed with the correct fourfold knowledge. Estimating these exaggerated figures at their true value, let us consider the 59 titles. Of the texts now enumerated as parts of the Siddhảnta the titles of the four painnas 26, 27, 29, 34, of the sixth chhêdasůtra 40 and of two of the mûlasůtras, 41 and 46 are omitted, Of these the four païonas are to be regarded as modern productions and later than the N; the titles of the sixth chhedasútra 40 and of the fourth mulasůtra 10 are not certain ; and, finally, the title of the fourth mûlasůtra 11, kvaśyaka, has been already mentioned. See on p. 11. The remaining 27 titles of texts of the present Siddhanta not belonging to the aigas (13 fg.) are one and all contained in the above list, though in a different order of arrangement and without any statement in reference to the names of their groups. Some, however, belong together as groups -- the first four and the last five upångas (Nos. 5-8 and 55-59) and the five chhêdasâtras (Nog. 31-35). Besides these the list contains 3296 additional names which are not directly represented by texts in the existing Siddhanta. Among these there are five for which corresponding sections in the S. can be shown, thus: - 10 pamiyappamayam, 17 pôrisimandalain, 18 mandalappavêsô, 38 divasagara pannatti [, 64 têyaganisagga). [17] In the Siddhanta there are references to 12 others; thus for 4, 36 and 38), 40-49; 8 others are mentioned elsewhere 9, 21, 51, [60--6-4); and finally there is a whole list of titles (12 or 13) which cannot be attested from any source whatsoever, thus 2, 3, 19, 22, 23, 24 (a. b., including maraṇavisôhi - 27, 50, 52, 53). It is of special interest that we find statements concerning a whole series of texts held to belong to the kâliam suam in old kårikå verses. The source of these statements is not further attested. These texts were a special object of riper study at the time of the composition of these verses. Of Nos. 40-49, 51 (50-53 ?), 60-64 it is said that they were designed for the eleventh to the eighteenth year of study: 40—44 for the eleventh, 45-49 for the twelfth, 51 (50-53 ?) for the thirteenth, 60-64 for the fourteenth to the eighteenth year; the nineteenth year forming the conclusion with the study of the ditthivada. Cf. my remarks on pp. 225, 344, 345.
This list at least opens up to us a wide perspective for the literature existing at the time of the composition of N. It is certainly very remarkable that N is itself cited in this list (as No. 11). Is this the only work of the author inserted by him in the list? Or did he avail himself of this capital opportunity to procure a resting place for other of his productions ? If in reality Dêvarddhigani, the nominal redactor of the Siddhanta, is to be regarded as the author of N, then the discrepancy between this list and the existing Siddh., is especially remarkable, [18] Did all these differences arise after his time? And is the division into the groups avanga, painna, etc., or the names uvamga, païnna themselves, etc., to be ascribed to a period subsequent to his? In the case of the painna this is evidently very probable.
Next follows the angapavittham 13, the thirteenth group of the guanânaparokkham, which strictly belongs before the anavgapavittham. It is called duvalasavibam and then the 12 angas, åyårð to ditthivað (anga 5 as vivahapannatti) are enumerated in order. This in turn is followed by the detailed statement of contents and extent of the 12 angas, which (see p. 284 ff.) recurs in identical form but in greater detail in anga 4. This entire statement has been given on p. 257. We have already seen (pp. 281 ff. 349, 352, 361, 363, and 3) that its appearance in anga 4 was secondary, and that here we frequently meet with the older readings. When in the insertions in the aigas made by the redactor (even in anga 4) any reference is paid to his enumeration,
# pratyêkaduddh& api taranta Ovn, ayuh; -atrai 'ké vyachakshate; Maikasyd 'pi tirthakritas tirthe parimanAni prakirņakini, tatkarisma aparimaņatvat; kevala pratyékabuddharachitány éva prakirņakani drachten vyani tatparimåņēns pratybkabuddhaparimaņasya pratipadankt. This explanation of eke is designed to effect perfectly comprehensible limitation, but cannot be brought in agreement with the context. The title pratyekabuddha is of great interest. It occurs also in the angas, see pp. 265, 334. Similar statements to the above are found in the scholiast on the first painna. See p. 435. In the Vichar Amritasangraha is quoted the following interesting citation from the pttha of kalpabhåshya: suttaro ganahararaiyam tahêvs patteyabuddharaiyam oha suyakëvaliņa raiyar abhinna daaapuvrini raiya || * Or 60 and 65, see p. 15, note.
# Or 33 and 38.
