Indian Antiquary Vol 21

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

Page 67

MARCH, 1892.]
PATTAVALIS OF THE DIGAMBARAS.
59
pointed out) should really be in it, for they are counted later on among the 26 pontiffs, who resided in Malwa (sce No. 25, or its own No 21). Now it is a pity that these three names should be missing; for they would show how that difference of 100 years was recovered. One cannot help suspecting, that there must have been some design in the ouission; the object may have been to evade the difficulty of making up the difference.
I believe the difference, in this particular point, between the two traditions may be accounted for. It will be noticed, that if the beginner of the pattavali proper of the Sarasvati Gachchha is, as A and C will have it, Bhadrababu II., that Gachchha is only a branch of the main-line that began with Mahavira. The main-line runs on for, at least, 6 further members, throngh Lôhâcharya, Ahivalli, Maghanandin, Dharasêna, Pushpadanta to Bhutavali, with whom it appears (according to the representation of A and C) to have become extinct. Now it is quite possible to identify Ahivalli with Arhadbalin or Guptigupia of No. 2 of the patta vali, and Maghanandin with Maghanandin of No. 3 of the pattávali; and we may assume that Bhadrabahu II. was first succeeded by his disciple Lohacharya, and afterwards by his other disciple Abivalli. Guptigupta (Arbadbalin), who in his turn was succeeded by Maghanandin. But this supposition does not remove the difficulty ; for Maghanandin, the One-Angin, was succeeded by Dharasêna in the main-line ; while Maghnnandin, No. 3 of the pattavali, was succeeded by Jinachandra in the pattávali. The difficulty still remains, that the Saraswati Gachchha, after all, is only a side-branch of the main-line, which became extinct with Bhůtavali. This difficulty, it seems to me, cannot help having been felt as derogatory to the dignity and claims of the Digambaras ; and the object of the tradition, represented in E, appears to have been to meet the difficulty. By that tradition the main-line is carried on from Bhadra bihu II., through Lobilcharya, Vinayadhara, 'Sridatta, Sivadatta and Aradatta (the last four taking the place of the five One-Angins of A and C) to Bhadrabahu III., who then founds the Sarasvati Gachchha. The latter is thus shown to be the direct continuation of the main-line.
And yet, in all probability, the tradition preserved in A and C is the genuine one, that the Sarasvati Gachchha, as well as the three other Gachchhas of the Digambaras, are merely side-branches of the main-line. There is a curious short notice in patļavali E, which quite undesignedly supports this view. After noticing Bhadrabahu, the founder of the Gachchha, E adds that "from him the 'Svêtâmbaras separated and initiated a pattavali of their own." This shows, at all events, that according to E, the Digambaras and Svêtâm baras separated from the time of Bhadrabahu. Now, if it appeared that the Digambaras were not the main-line but a branch, the presumption would naturally be that it was they who were the schismatics or heretics. Hence the necessity to show that they were the main line, and therefore that the Svêtâmbaras were a branch and schismatics. Hence the fiction of a Bhadrabahu III. But if the tradition of A and C is the genuine one, and the Sarasvati Gachchha, i. e., the Digambaras, was founded by Bhadrabahu II., and if, as tradition E says, the Srêtâm baras separated in his time, it follows that the Svētâmbaras were the main-line, while the Digambaras were the branch or seceders. It follows further that that famous separation took place between 490 and 513 A. V. (or 61 and 38 B. C., adjusted, see ante, Vol. XX. p. 360), the period of Bhadrababu's pontificate.
And this leads on to another point. All pattavalis agree in representing Maghanandin as the actual founder of the Sarasvati Gachchha, whence it is also called the Amnaya, or Line of Nandin. At the same time they also all agree in making the pattávali proper of the Gachchha to begin with Bhadrabahu, two steps before Mâghanandin. This, it appears to me, can have but one meaning: before Bhadrabahu the Jain community was undivided; with him the Digambaras separated from the Svetambaras, but remained united themselves; with Maghanandin the Digambaras themselves separated into four divisions, the most important
? I may here note, that Guptigupta, the successor of Bhadrabahu III and No. 9 of the pattevall, is not really omitted in E, for he is counted among the 26 pontiffs, who resided in Malwa. His omission, in his proper place, is only Another of the many errors of the MS.