________________
MARCH, 1892.]
PATTAVALIS OF THE DIGAMBARAS.
63
Serial Number.
I. Recension A, D.
II. Recension c.
0.
cios
householder 11. 0. 0, Total 50. 4-14 | householder 21- 0-0, Total 60. 4-14 monkhood 25- 0-0, 58- 0.0 monkhood 15- 0-0,
48- 0-0 pontificate 3- 4.1, 47. 4. 5 pontificate 2. 4.1,
46- 4- 5 householder 39-0-0,
etc. » 55- 7- 1 householder 7.0.0,
23- 6-24 monkhood 40. (- 0, 51. 8- 1 monkhood 240. O,
35. 8. 1 pontificate 5. 5. 5, etc., 57- 5. 9 pontificate 5. 4-29, etc., 49. 5. 9 householder 10.0.0,
53- 2- 1 householder 14. 0-0, pontificate 4. 1-16, etc. 50- 6-21 pontificate 4. 1. 0, monkhood 37- 0-0, 47- 3-1 monkhood 27- 0-0,
37- 3. 1 intercalary
9, 35- 9- 8 intercalary
7,
35- 9. 6 monkhood 25- 0.0, 38. 4- 1 monkhood 22. 0-0,
35. 4.1 pontificate 2-11-28, 26- 0.1 pontificate 2-11
25-11-21 intercalary 45- 6-21 intercalary
45-6-20 householder 13. 0-0, 47. 3- 9 householder 12- 0-0,
46- 3- 9 monkhood 20- 0-0, » 33- 5.0 monkhood 2. 0. 0,
15. 5.0 pontificate 2-13-19, 28. 3-23 pontificate 2- 3-16,
28-3-20 monkhood 24. 0. 0, 96-3-15 monkhood 14. 0-0,
86. 3-15
To the above tables I may add that both P and E insert an additional name between Nos. 47 and 48 ; viz., Vasavachandra (E) or Vasavêndu (P). In this point C agrees with the other recension of A, B, D), which omits that name. Further E omits No. 79 Prakshậntikîrtti (or as B, D have it Prakshata kirtti), so that its total number of pontiffs is the same as that in the other lists. This pontiff is also omitted in P, for the "prakhyatakîrtti" of the latter is not a name, but a title of No. 78, Vasantakirtti. In this point, too, C agrees with A,B,D. Though I suspect that E, P are correct, as against A, B, C, D, I am unable to account for the divergence. There is a similar discrepancy between the pattavalt C and all others (see below) with respect to the successor of No. 85, Subhachandra.
One further point I may note. Pattavalt A is the only one which gives what I have called the Nagôr section. All others, B, D, E, P, give the Chitor section. The two sections separated after No. 87. Pattávali C only goes down to No. 85 (or rather No. 86), and stops short just before the schism. From the remark in pattâvali D (see below), referring to this schism, it would seem that the two sections took up their residences in Gwaler and Nagôr respectively. But pattâ vali E mentions No. 89, Lalitakirtti, as still resident in Chîtör, and with this the passage on the schism in pattávali A agrees. See the passages which are quoted below. This matter of the schism still requires further clearing up.? I now proceed to describe the three pattavalis separately.
PATTÅVALI C. This pattávali is drawn up on the plan of pattavalt A, i.e. it begins with an introduction detailing the antecedent history of the Gachchha, after which it gives the list of pontiffs, with all the dates of each life in addition to the year of accession. A peculiar feature are the concluding remarks after the introduction (see below SS 16-19) as well as after the pattåvalt proper (SS 23-26), which give some curious information regarding the three other orthodox Sanghas, vis., the Deva, Simba and Sêna, as well as regarding some (apparently five) heretical or
In his Jainamata Vriksha, or Genealogical Table of the Jains, Muni Atmåråmji makes the following remark: In Sam. 1572 Rupa Chand Sorana, of his own accord, put on the monk's garb and originated the Negóri Lumpaka sect.' This appears to refer to the above-mentioned schiam, though the name of the founder differs.
