________________
64
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[MARCH, 1892.
schismatic Sanghas, viz., the Sitapatta or Svetâmbara, the Kashtha, the Dravida, the Yâpullya or Yapaniya, and the Kêkîpichchha or Nilpichchha. Paragraphs 16 and 17 appear to me a little confused; it is not clear whether the same or different sects are spoken of; the names are so similar, that the former seems the more probable view.
Another peculiarity of pattavali C are the numerous extracts it quotes in support of its statements. Some of them are identical with those quoted also in patțâvali A, and these, it now appears, are quoted from the Vikrama Prabandha, a work which I see is mentioned in the Deccan College collection, No. 172. The other extracts are taken from the Nitisâra, a work ascribed to Indranandin, a copy of which (No. 371) also exists in the Deccan College collection (see its Catalogue, p. 145). To judge from the name of its author, he should be a member of the Sarasvati Gachchha, to which the surname Nandin is peculiar; but it does not occur, at least, among the names of the pontiffs.
In the Gâthâs, giving the dates of Vikrama's life (see below § 15), there again occurs the puzzling word rasapana. In my previous paper (see ante, Vol. XX. p. 360) I have suggested that it should be read paṇarasa, 'fifteen.' From the comment on the gâthâ in patţâvali C, however, it is clear that the reading rasapana is, at least, so far genuine that it already existed for the writer of the pattâvali. For he interprets it as meaning "fifty-six." He, evidently, must have taken it as a compound of the two nouns rasa and pana. The former, rasa, is the well-known symbolical expression for 6, while the latter would seem to be a name for 5, though I am not aware of the fact. According to the usual rule of interpreting such symbolic names inversely, the word rasapana would mean 56. It is also to be noted that in paṭṭâvali C the line, in which rasapana occurs, reads rajjam kunanti "he reigned," instead of the jajjam kunanti "he performed sacrifices" of patṭivali A. If the periods are taken to be consecutive as one would naturally do, the verses, as interpreted in paṭṭâvali C, would give king Vikrama a life of 118 years (i. e., 6 + 16 +56 +40)! But possibly 56 years are understood to be the total period of his reign, during the latter portion of which, comprising 40 years, Vikrama was a Jain. If so, there would be a curious coincidence in the fact, that the suggested reading panarasa 'fifteen' would give him a reign of 55 years (ie., 15+40). The line in question would then have to be translated: "for 56 years he carried on his rule being at first attached to heretical doctrines." Here, however, the most significant words "at first" would have to be supplied, not being expressed in any way by the verse itself.
I may also note, that instead of the terms viraha or antara, pattavali C occasionally uses the synonymous term antarálá; see, e.g., No. 62.
The list of pontiffs in this pattâvali closes with Subhachandra, who reigned up to Sam. 150, or A.D. 1440, some time before the separation into the Chîtôr and Nâgôr lines took place. In the concluding remarks of the pattavali (see § 23) it is stated that Subhachandra was followed by Sakalakirtti, and from the form of the remark it would seem that he must have been the reigning pontiff, at the time the paṭṭavali was written. This would give it a date somewhere about 1450 A. D., and would make it the oldest at present known; the next oldest being the pattávali P, the date of which must be about 1650 A.D., as it comes down to the pontiff Narêndrakirtti (of the Chîtôr line, see ante, Vol. XX. p. 355). There is a difficulty, however, in the names. Instead of Sakalakîrtti, all the other pattavalis (A, B, D, E) give either Jinachandra or Prabhachandra as the successor of Subhachandra. Moreover pattavalt C gives Vâgvar in Gujarât as the residence of Sakalakirtti as well as of Padmanandin and Subhachandra, while the other patţâvalis (A, B, D, E) give Dilli as the residence of the two last mentioned pontiffs, as well as of 'Subhachandra's successor (see the list above). I am unable to clear up this difficulty; but it may be noted that there are in patțâvâlf C itself indications that a pontiff may have borne two quite distinct names. In the same § 23, there is mentioned a pontiff Narên
Catalogue of the Collections of Manuscripts deposited in the Deccan College, by Prof. Bhandarkar, p. 50,
(Bombay 1888).
