Indian Antiquary Vol 21

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 65

MARCH, 1892.]
PATTAVALIS OF THE DIGAMBARAS.
57
TIREE FURTHER PATTAVALIS OF THE DIGAMBARAS.
BY PROFESSOR A. F. RUDOLF HOERNLE. SOME months ago (see ante, Vol. XX. page 341 ff.) I published two pattavalis of the Digam
baras, which were kindly made over to me by Mr. Cecil Bendall for publication. I now publish three more pattavalis of the same Jain section, which I owe to the kindness of Pandit Hari Das Sbästri, who has now been for several years in Jaipur as Director of Public Instruction in that Principality. The originals of these three pattávalis I have been obliged to return to their owners. My account of them is prepared from copies which I got made for me. For reasons of convenience I shall designate them by the letters C, D, E; while the two patta valis published previously I shall refer to as A and B, and Peterson's pattávali as P.
The main interest of these new pattávalfs is that they seem clearly to show that there exist two distinct traditions as to the exact course of pontifical succession, differing not inconsiderably from one another. It is true that the pattávali E is so slovenly written as to raise one's suspicions as to its trustworthiness. Thus, in the introduction (see below), among the Ten-Purvins, Prosthila is omitted; but that this is a mere clerical error is shown by the total number 9, at the end of the 3rd paragraph. Again in the Vamsavall proper (see below) three names are omitted between Yasahkirtti and Guņanandin ; viz., No. 9 Yasónandin, No. 10 Devanandin, No. 11 Jayanandin. Here, too, the fact of its being a mere clerical error is shown by the remarki after the entry of Santikirtti (No. 21 of the MS., but really No. 25), that till then there had been 26 pontiffs, thus clearly counting the omitted numbers. But these and other similar marks of error are not sufficient to account for the remarkable difference of pontifical succession, disclosed in the introductory portion of Eas compared with A and C.
The first point of difference is, that while both traditions agree in making the length of the introductory period to be 683 years (after Vira), they entirely disagree as to the sub-divisions of that period and the number and identity of the persons composing them. There is no disagreement with respect to the two first sub-divisions ; both gire the same 3 Kêvalins for 62 years and the same 5 'Srutakévalins for 100 years. But while A and E enumerate 11 Ten-Purvins for 183 years, E allows only 9 Ten-Purvins, also for 183 years. The names are the same, but E closes the Srutaké valins with the ninth on the list of A and C, Buddhilinga, whom it calls Bahudhuli; and it transfers the tenth and eleventh of the list of A and C, to the next sub-division of Eleven-Angins. In the latter sub-division A and C enumerate 5 members with a total of 123 years, while E has in it 6 members with a total of 220 years. The list of names also differs greatly. Further A and C have a sub-division of 4 Minor-Angins for 97 years, and another of 5 One-Angins for 118 years; but E allows no Minor-Angins at all, and has only one sub-division of 6 One-Angins for 118 years. The list of names again differs entirely: in fact, the Minor-Angins of A and Care identical with the One-Angins of E, with the addition of one new name, quite unknown to A and C. On the other hand, all the names of the One-Angins of A and C are unknown to E. The subjoined table will best exhibit these differences, Tradition in A and O.
Tradition in E. 1 Gôtama
1 62 years, 3 Kêvalins 3 2 Sudharman 2
3 Kêvalins for 62 years. 3 Jambu 1 Vishaupandin 1
2 Nandimitra 2 100 years, 5 Sratakêvalin.
3 Aparajita 3
5 'Srutakêvalins, 100 years. 4 Govardhana 4 5 Bhadrabhahu 1.5
1 There is here another piece of slovenliness. The remark is misplaced; it should really come after No. 26 (or No. 22 of the MS.) Méruktrtti.