________________
t'attoarthasūtra : Verification of Prasasti
Śarguota or Susthita-Supratibuddha. It could have been that Nagars Sakha branched off from Ballsaaba's gana was more well known than the other two. It is neither known whether it was so done intentionally or accidentally.
Śrguru palfaval entera Balissaha and Susthita-Supratibuddha as the rivals (varaka; hostile, opposing). Addition of this abrupt information seems to have an attempt to assert that Svati does not belong to Susthita-Supratibuddha line, namely, Uccalrdagaci dakbā, for this party is said to have stood hostile against Ballssaba party of whioh Svati 18 a member. It may alludes that there was aomo prestige struggle for the prerogative over our eminent Vacaka among the Nagarı dakhas This pattayalı 18 undated, but from the manner of its description it may stand close to the poriod of Tapagaccha pallavalı of Dharmasagaragani, 1.e., 16th century A.D. This tradition could be an old one, but it cannot be that old, for it cssentially follows the interpretation of Nandi commentaries. It can certainly not be older than Curņi which commonts upon the Nandisutra. Then the implication made by the Śrguru pattayalı should not be counted seriously for the consideration of our problem,
It is apfficiently convincing that the Nandi author crostod a seat for Svati in the genealogy of Kalpasutra wherein all the Nagars dakhas branched off from the disciples of Mahagırı-Subastı Arya Santisenika, founder of Uccairnagarı dukha, wag totally forgotten because he stood outside this Mabagiri-Suhasti circlo. A doubt may ariso as to how his gotra Harita could bavo escaped a criticism expected from Haribhadra and Malayagiri who are said to have commented upon the T.S. The author of the Nandtyrtti was most likely not the samo Haribhadra who wrote a commentary on the T.S. after the Bhagyanusarini. Malayagiri's commentary on the T.S, doos not exist, and we are not at all sure if be at all made it or not. Thus this doubt shall be dism188ed.
Although much is still in darkness, yet the foregoing discussion sufil, clently well explains that Svati referred by the Nandzsutra is identical with UmX8*tl who belonged to one of the three Nagarı sakhas recorded in the Kalpasutra, and that the Nandi record of his gotra was likely derived by the confusion of place names. Nandi author seems to have attempted to justify his interpolation of Svati after Ballssaha by bringing in the line of Svama -Sandilya who belonged to much carlier date than Umzsvati. The modes of such manipulation suggest that this interpolation was made in considerably later time when the authoritative position of the T.S. camo to be well recognized in the Jalna circle. Later authors of pattavals in the Groups II and III faced difficulty in accepting Umāsvati's chronological position created by the Nandisutra and attempted to adjust it by pushing him further down. This is enough to ascertain that tho Nandisutra, although
