________________
60
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[MARCH, 1892.
of which would seem to have been that named after Maghanandin. This view is distinctly borne out by that curious notice in E, that the 'Srétâmbaras separated from the time of Bhadrabahu. It is also indirectly borne out by the notice of patřâvali (in $16, see below), that "the Sitapata or white-robed Sangha arose from the Mêlasangha." For whether the Malasangha be taken to mean the undivided Jains or only the andivided Digambaras, in any case the notice refers the origin of the 'Svētâmbaras to a time prior to the Digambara division under Maghanandin.
Now, it is well-known that the Diganbaras place the great separation of themselves and the Svêtâmbaras in Sam. 136 (or A, D. 79). This tradition of theirs is not borne out by their own pattavalis, as represented in A, B, C, D. For they place Bhadrabâhu in Sam. 4 (or B. C. 53). and even Mâghapandin is placed in Saṁ. 36 (or B. C. 21). Therefore one of two things: either the tradition about the separation in Sam. 136 is false, or the separation took place long after Maghanandin. In the latter case, the Svêtâmbaras separated not from the Mûlasangha (or the undivided Digambaras), but only from one of its subdivisional Gachchhas. This latter case is negatived, as already pointed out, by the statements of the pattavalss themselves. It follows that the pattavalis, such as A, B, C, D, contradict the tradition of the great separation in Sam. 136. Now, it seems to me, that the object of pattavali E is to harmonise the two traditions : that the great separation took place under Bhadrabahu, or at least under Maghanandin, and that it took place in Sam. 136. It was apparently thought that this could be done most easily by simply adding one hundred years to Maghanandin's usual traditional date. According to A, B, C, D he succeeded in San. 36; pattávali E turns the year into Sam. 136. It is a clumsy expedient; for, in the first place, it necessitated other changes and even interpolations to account for the additional centary : hence the fiction of a Bhadrabahu III. In the second place, it was only a half-measure; for it placed the great separation under Måghanandin, whereas the patta valis really required it to be placed under Bhadrabhu II. But to have altered the latter's date from Sam. 4 to Sam. 136 would seem to have been considered too violent a measure.
We have undoubtedly here two contradictory traditions of the Digambaras disclosed to 09; that of their pattivalis places the great separation considerably earlier than Sam. 136, in the time of Bhadrabahu. The question is who this Bhadrâbâhu was. The Svêtâmbaras pattavalis know only one Bhadrabahu, who, from the dates assigned to him by the 'Svêtâmbaras and Digambaras alike, must be identical with the Bhadrabâhu I. of the Digambaras. Considering the varying and contradictory character of the Digambara traditions, the probability is that the inception of the great separation took place under Bhadrabahu I, who died 162 A. V. according to the Digambaras, or 170 A. V. according to the Svêtâmbaras. The final and definite schism may then have occurred later in Sam. 136 or, according to the 'Svêtâmbaras, Sam. 139.
Further, there is another divergence of tradition disclosed in the five pattavalis, now published. This refers not to the succession so much as to the residences or migrations of the pontiffs, and, therefore, of the Digambara sect. On this point, the partivalis A, B, D altogether agree; pattávali E also agrees in the main; bat pattarali presents a considerably different tradition. This may be seen at a glance from the subjoined table. One point of general agreement comes out clearly and is noteworthy, namely, the general direction of the Digambara migration. It was from the South to the North, from Bhadalpur to Dilli and Jaipur. This agrees with the opinion that the Digambara separation originally took place as a result of the migration southwards under Bhadrababu in consequence of a severe famine in Bihar, the original home of the undivided Jaina community. I have not boon &
The vetAmbaras place it three years later, in 82 A. D. See my edition of the Uvdeagadaado (Bibliotheon Indion) Vol. II. p. IX.
• Or with the adjustment of 8 years (noe ante, Vol. XX. p. 860), 61 B. C. and 44 B. O. respectively.
Soo Introduction to my edition of the Uvasagadaado (Bibl. Ind.), Vol. II. p. viii.
