________________
JULY, 1910)
IS KALKIRAJA AN HISTORICAL PERSONAGE :
125
that Kalkirâja was born 1000 years after the Nirvana of Mahavira. What Jinasena has to say on the point is not quite clear from quotations as adduced by Mr. Pathak. Verse 552 quoted by him says that the Saka king there will arise (presumably, will commence to reign) when 605 years and 5 months expire after Vira-Nirvana. Verses 487 and 488 quoted by him give us 231 years as the period of the Gupta kings, and 42 years of Kalkiraja. Mr. Pathak quotes no other verse from Jinasena. There seems to be no clear connection between v. 552 and vv. 487 and 488. As they stand here they do not explain whether the 42 years of the reign of Kalkirâja are to be taken as the ending years of the
1000-year period or whether they are to be excluded from it and we are to suppose that Kalkirâja was born after the expiry of that period. Jinasena's verses are given mutilated and without context. Mr. Pathak combines the mutilated statement of Jinasena with that of Gunabhadra and concludes that according to Jinasena and Guabhadra Kalkireja was born when 394 years and 7 months had passed away from the birth of the Saka nikg.' There are two mistakes in this assertion. First Jinasena does not say, as I have shown above, that Kaldiraja was born when 1000 years passed after Vira-Nirvana: according to him Kalkiraja's years complete that traditional period among the Jains. M. rPathak may have overlooked the four verses just preceding v. 487 and consequently fallen intothe error. Otherwise he would not have said that Jinasena's date for Kalkiraja agrees with that of Gunabhadra and Nemichandra. According to Jinasena Kalkirâja died in 1000 of the Vira-Nirvana era while according to the other two authors, Kalkirâja was born in 1001 of the same era. This means a difference of 70 years in dates-if we suppose that according to all the three writers Kalkirâja lived for 70 years. Secondly,
TETATSYT does not mean 'The Saka king was born' but the Saka king began to reign.' It is not known that the Saka era was inaugurated in celebration of the birth of a Saka king. But this is a minor point.
It will thus be seen that of the three authorities of Mr. Pathak, one who is the oldest of the three contradicts the other two. Therefore, their statements are deprived of much of their value and must be utitised with caution.
The three authors referred to by Mr. Pathak bolong to the Digambará sect of the Jains. There are certain other Digartibara writers who have a slightly different account to give of Kalkiraja. Gunabhadra says that Kalkirâja was the son of Sibupala and Prithvisundari; but Trilokya-prajñapli, a Digambara work written about A.D. 1200, says that he was the son of Indra.'
The Trilokya-prajñapti notes two somewhat varying chronologies covering the 1000-year period after the Nirvdņa of Mahâvîra. There is a slight difference between the two: but the important point to be noted is that neither of them states that Kalkirkja was born in 1001 after Nirvdņa. I may quote the verses here :
FATTO A 759 Rerg vrei जादोच सगनरिंदी रज्ज वस्सस्स दुसब वादाला || बोणिसदा पणरण्णा गुत्ताणं चमुहस्स वादालं ।
वस्स होदि सहस्सं केई एवं पररान्ति ॥ For what follows from here I am indebted to the several articles which appeared in the Deoomber number of the Jaina-Hilarah (1917) on this question.
तत्ती कक्की जादो सदो सस्स चउमुहो जामो।
सत्तरि वरिसा आकविगुणिव-गवीस रज्जती॥ STT: ततः कल्किजात इन्द्रसतस्तस्व चतुर्मुखो नाम ।
समतिर्वाणि भाबुदिगुणित-एकविंशतिः राज्य !
