________________
236
MEDIÆVAL JAINISM either during his life time or just before him. Since the Drāvida sangha was not included among the four songhas into which Ardhabali divided the original Mūla sangha, it may be inferred that it was a later creation.
The validity of the above assumptions will be clear on examining the following points-Firstly, when we ascertain the sangha to which the Drāvida sangha was attached ; and, Secondly, the name of the successors of Ardhabali who were directly responsible for the growth of the Drāvida sangha.
As regards the first point, it may be observed that the Drāvida sangha to which was attached the Irunguļānvaya from which hailed many great Jaina gurus, was itself a subdivision of the Nandi sangha. Epigraphic evidence proves this. An inscription assigned by Rice to circa A.D. 1050 speaks of Gunasena Pandita as having belonged to the Drāvida sangha (of the) Nandi sangha and Irunguļānvaya.1 This is further proved by a record dated A.D. 1064 which registered the death of the same guru whose preceptor we are told in the same inscription was Puşpasena. Gunasena is called the lord of the great Irungūļānvaya of the Nandi sangha of the Drāvida gana.2 Instances may be multiplied to prove this further.3
Now in regard to the successors of Ardhabali who were
1. E. C., IX, Cg. 37, p. 174. See also ibid., Cg. 38 dated about the same year.
2. Ibid., Cg. 34, p. 173.
3. See Ibid., IV. Gu. 27 of A.D. 1196, p. 40; V. Hn. 131 of circa A.D. 1117, p. 37 ; Hn. 128 undated, p. 80 (translit) ; Ak. 1 of A.D. 1169, p. 112 ; Ak. 141 of A.D. 1159, p. 175; VI. Mg. 18 of circa A.D. 1040, p. 61 where Draviļa sangha is said to belong to the Mūla sangha ; VIII Nr. 36 of A.D. 1077, p. 139; Nr. 37. of A.D. 1147, p. 142 ; Nr. 39 of circa A.D. 1077, p. 143 ; Nr. 40, of A.D. 1077, p. 144 ; XI, Dg. 90, p. 69.
