words and the names of the family Jñâti, Jñâta or Naya, to which
Vardhamâna belonged is apparent. Now since in older Buddhist literature,
the title 'the son of the man of the family N. N.' is very often used
instead of the individual's name, as for example, 'the son of the Sâkiya'
is put for Buddha-Sâkiyaputta, so that it is difficult not to suppose that
Nâtaputta or Jñâtiputra, the leader of the Niga[n.][t.]ha or Nirgrantha
sect, is the same person as Vardhamâna, the descendant of the Jñâti family
and founder of the Nirgrantha or Jaina sect. If we follow up this idea,
and gather together the different remarks of the Buddhists about the
opponents of Buddha, then it is apparent that his identity with Vardhamâna
is certain. A number of rules of doctrine are ascribed to him, which are
also found among the Jainas, and some events in his life, which we have
already found in the accounts of the life of Vardhamâna, are related.

In one place in the oldest part of the Singalese canon, the assertion is
put into the mouth of Niga[n.][t.]ha Nâtaputta, that the
_Kiriyâvâda_--the doctrine of activity, separates his system from
Buddha's teaching. We shall certainly recognise in this doctrine, the rule
of the _Kiriyâ_, the activity of souls, upon which Jainism places so
great importance. [Footnote: Jacobi, _Zeitschrift der Deutsch. Morg.
Ges._ Bd. XXXIV, S. 187; _Ind. Antiq._ Vol. IX, p. 159.] Two other
rules from the doctrine of souls are quoted in a later work, not
canonical: there it is stated, in a collection of false doctrines which
Buddha's rivals taught, that Niga[n.][t.]ha asserts that cold water was
living. Little drops of water contained small souls, large drops, large
souls. Therefore he forbade his followers, the use of cold water. It is
not difficult, in these curious rules to recognise the Jaina dogma, which
asserts the existence of souls, even in the mass of lifeless elements of
earth, water, fire, and wind. This also proves, that the Niga[n.][t.]ha
admitted the classification of souls, so often ridiculed by the
Brâhma[n.]s, which distinguishes between great and small. This work, like
others, ascribes to Niga[n.][t.]ha the assertion, that the so-called three
_da[n.][d.]a_--the three instruments by which man can cause injury to
creatures--thought, word, and body, are separate active causes of sin. The
Jaina doctrine agrees also in this case, which always specially represents
the three and prescribes for each a special control. [Footnote: Jacobi,
_Ind. Antiq._ Vol. IX, p. 159.]

Besides these rules, which perfectly agree with one another, there are
still two doctrines of the Niga[n.][t.]ha to be referred to which seem to,
or really do, contradict the Jainas; namely, it is stated that Nâtaputta
demanded from his disciples the taking of four, not as in Vardhamâna's
case, of five great vows. Although this difficulty may seem very important
at first glance, it is, however, set aside by an oft repeated assertion in
the Jaina works. They repeatedly say that Pàr['s]va, the twenty-third Jina
only recognised four vows, and Vardhamâna added the fifth. The Buddhists
have therefore handed down a dogma which Jainism recognises. The question
is merely whether they or the Jainas are the more to be trusted. If the
latter, and it is accepted that Vardhamâna was merely the reformer of an
old religion, then the Buddhists must be taxed with an easily possible
confusion between the earlier and later teachers. If, on the other hand,
the Jaina accounts of their twenty-third prophet are regarded as mythical,
and Vardhamâna is looked upon as the true founder of the sect,--then the
doctrine of the four vows must be ascribed to the latter, and we must
accept as a fact that he had changed his views on this point. In any case,
however, the Buddhist statement speaks for, rather than against, the
identity of Niga[n.][t.]ha with Jina. [Footnote: Jacobi, _loc. cit._.
p. 160, and Leumann, _Actes du Vlième Congrès Int. des Or_. Sect.
Ary. p. 505. As the Jaina accounts of the teaching of Pâr['s]va and the
existence of communities of his disciples, sound trustworthy, we may
perhaps accept, with Jacobi, that they rest on a historical foundation.]

Vardhamâna's system, on the other hand, is quite irreconcilable with
Nâtaputta's assertion that virtue as well as sin, happiness as well as
unhappiness is unalterably fixed for men by fate, and nothing in their
destiny can be altered by the carrying out of the holy law. It is,
however, just as irreconcilable with the other Buddhist accounts of the
teaching of their opponent; because it is absolutely unimaginable, that
the same man, who lays vows upon his followers, the object of which is to
avoid sin, could nevertheless make virtue and sin purely dependent upon
the disposition of fate, and preach the uselessness of carrying out the
law. The accusation that Nâtaputta embraced fatalism must therefore be
regarded as an invention and an outcome of sect hatred as well as of the
wish to throw discredit on their opponents. [Footnote: Jacobi _loc.
cit._. p. 159-160.]

The Buddhist remarks on the personality and life of Nâtaputta are still
more remarkable. They say repeatedly that he laid claim to the dignity of
an Arhat and to omniscience which the Jainas also claim for their prophet,
whom they prefer simply to call 'the Arhat' and who possesses the
universe-embracing '_Kevala_' knowledge. [Footnote: See for example
the account in the _Chullavagga_, in _S.B.E_. Vol. XX. p. 78-79;
_Ind. Antiq._ Vol. VIII, p. 313.] A history of conversions, tells us
further that Nâtaputta and his disciples disdained to cover their bodies;
we are told just the same of Vardhamâna. [Footnote: Spence Hardy,
_Manual of Budhism_, p. 225.] A story in the oldest part of the
Singalese canon gives an interesting and important instance of his
activity in teaching. Buddha, so the legend runs, once came to the town
Vai['s]âlî, the seat of the Kshatriya of the Lichchhavi race. His name,
his law, his community were highly praised by the nobles of the Lichchhavi
in the senate-house. Sîha, their general, who was a follower of the
Niga[n.][t.]ha, became anxious to know the great teacher. He went to his
master Nâtaputta, who happened to be staying in Vai['s]âlî just then, and
asked permission to pay the visit. Twice Nâtaputta refused him. Then Sîha
determined to disobey him. He sought Buddha out, heard his teaching and
was converted by him. In order to show his attachment to his new teacher
he invited Buddha and his disciples to eat with him. On the acceptance of
the invitation, Sîha commanded his servants to provide flesh in honour of
the occasion. This fact came to the ears of the followers of the
Niga[n.][t.]ha. Glad to have found an occasion to damage Buddha, they
hurried in great numbers through the town, crying out, that Sîha had
caused a great ox to be killed for Buddha's entertainment; that Buddha had
eaten of the flesh of the animal although he knew it had been killed on
his account, and was, therefore guilty of the death of the animal. The
accusation was brought to Siha's notice and was declared by him to be a
calumny. Buddha, however preached a sermon after the meal, in which he
forbade his disciples to partake of the flesh of such animals as had been
killed on their account. The legend also corroborates the account in the
Jaina works, according to which Vardhamâna often resided in Vai['s]âlî and
had a strong following in that town. It is probably related to show that
his sect was stricter, as regards the eating of flesh, than the Buddhists,
a point, which again agrees with the statutes of the Jainas. [Footnote:
_S.B.E_. Vol. XVII, pp. 108-117.]

The account of Nâtaputta's death is still more important. "Thus I heard
it", says an old book of the Singalese canon, the _Sâmagâma Sutta_,
"once the Venerable one lived in Sâmagâma in the land of the Sâkya. At
that time, however, certainly the Niga[n.][t.]ha Nâtaputta had died in
Pâvâ. After his death the Niga[n.][t.]ha wandered about disunited,
separate, quarrelling, fighting, wounding each other with words."
[Footnote: The passage is given in the original by Oldenberg,
_Leitsch. der D. Morg. Ges_. Bd. XXXIV, S. 749. Its significance
in connection with the Jaina tradition as to their schisms has been
overlooked until now. It has also been unnoticed that the assertion, that
Vardhamâna died during Buddha's lifetime, proves that the latest account
of this occurrence given by traditions 467 B.C. is false: Later Buddhist
legends (Spence Hardy, _Manual of Budhism_, pp. 266-271) treat of
Nâtaputta's death in more detail. In a lengthy account they give as the
cause of the same the apostacy of one of his disciples, Upâli who was
converted by Buddha. After going over to Buddhism, Upâli treated his
former master with scorn, and presumed to relate a parable which should
prove the foolishness of those who believed in false doctrines. Thereupon
the Niga[n.][t.]ha fell into despair. He declared his alms-vessel was
broken, his existence destroyed, went to Pâva, and died there. Naturally
no importance is to be given to this account and its details. They are
apparently the outcome of sect-hatred.] Here we have complete confirmation
of the statement of the Jaina canon as to the place where Vardhamâna
entered _Nirvâ[n.]a_, as well as of the statement that a schism
occurred immediately after his death.

The harmony between the Buddhist and Jaina tradition, as to the person of
the head of the Nirgrantha is meanwhile imperfect. It is disturbed by the
description of Nâtaputta as a member of the Brâhmanic sect of the
Âgnive['s]yâyana, whilst Vardhamâna belonged to the Kâ['s]yapa. The point
is however so insignificant, that an error on the part of the Buddhists is
easily possible. [Footnote: According to Jacobi's supposition,
_S.B.E_. Vol. XXII, p. xvi, the error was caused, by the only
disciple of Vardhamâna, who outlived his master, Sudharman being an
Âgnive['s]yâyana.] It is quite to be understood that perfect exactness is
not to be expected among the Buddhists or any other sect in describing the
person of a hated enemy. Enmity and scorn, always present, forbid that.
The most that one can expect is that the majority and most important of
the facts given may agree.

This condition is undoubtedly fulfilled in the case on hand. It cannot,
therefore be denied, that, in spite of this difference, in spite also of
the absurdity of one article of the creed ascribed to him, Vardhamâna
Jñâtiputra, the founder of the Nirgrantha--or Jaina community is none
other than Buddha's rival. From Buddhist accounts in their canonical works
as well as in other books, it may be seen that this rival was a dangerous
and influential one, and that even in Buddha's time his teaching had
spread considerably. Their legends about conversions from other sects very
often make mention of Nirgrantha sectarians, whom Buddha's teaching or
that of his disciples had alienated from their faith. Also they say in
their descriptions of other rivals of Buddha, that these, in order to gain
esteem, copied the Nirgrantha and went unclothed, or that they were looked
upon by the people as Nirgrantha holy ones, because they happened to have
lost their clothes. Such expressions would be inexplicable if Vardhamâna's
community had not become of great importance. [Footnote: See for the
history of Sîha related above, Spence Hardy, _Manual of Budhism_, pp.
226, 266, and Jacobi, _Ind. Antiq._ Vol. VIII, p. 161]

This agrees with several remarks in the Buddhist chronicles, which assert
the existence of the Jainas in different districts of India during the
first century after Buddha's death. In the memoirs of the Chinese Buddhist
and pilgrim Hiuen Tsiang, who visited India in the beginning of the
seventh century of our era, is to be found an extract from the ancient
annals of Magadha, which proves the existence of the Nirgrantha or Jainas
in their original home from a very early time. [Footnote: Beal,
_Si-yu-ki._ Vol. II, p. 168.] This extract relates to the building of
the great monastry at Nâlandâ, the high school of Buddhism in eastern
India, which was founded shortly after Buddha's _Nirvâ[n.]a_, and
mentions incidentally that a Nirgrantha who was a great astrologer and
prophet had prophesied the future success of the new building. At almost
as early a period the _Mahâva[=n]sa_, composed in the fifth century
A.D., fixes the appearance of the Nirgrantha in the island of Ceylon. It
is said that the king Pa[n.][d.]ukâbhaya, who ruled in the beginning of
the second century after Buddha, from 367-307 B.C. built a temple and a
monastery for two Nirgranthas. The monastery is again mentioned in the
same work in the account of the reign of a later king Va[t.][t.]âgâmini,
cir. 38-10 B.C. It is related that Va[t.][t.]âgâmini being offended by the
inhabitants, caused it to be destroyed after it had existed during the
reigns of twenty one kings, and erected a Buddhist Sa[.n]ghârâma in its
place. The latter piece of information is found also in the
_Dîpava[=n]sa_ of more than a century earlier. [Footnote: Turnour,
_Mahâva[.n]sa_, pp. 66-67 and p. 203, 206: _Dîpava[=n]sa_ XIX
14; comp. also Kern, _Buddhismus_, Bd. I, S. 422. In the first
passage in the _Mahâva[.n] sa_, three Nigha[n.][t.]as are introduced
by name, Jotiya, Giri, and Kumbha[n.][d.]a. The translation incorrectly
makes the first a Brâhma[n.] and chief engineer.]

None of these works can indeed be looked upon as a truly historical
source. There are, even in those paragraphs which treat of the oldest
history after Buddha's death, proofs enough that they simply hand down a
faulty historical tradition. In spite of this, their statements on the
Nirgrantha, cannot be denied a certain weight, because they are closely
connected on the one side with the Buddhist canon, and on the other they
agree with the indisputable sources of history, which relate to a slightly
later period.

The first authentic information on Vardhamâna's sect is given by our
oldest inscriptions, the religious edicts of the Maurya king A['s]oka,
who, according to tradition was anointed in the year 219 after Buddha's
death, and--as the reference to his Grecian contemporaries, Antiochos,
Magas, Alexander, Ptolemaeus and Antigonas confirms,--ruled, during the
second half of the third century B.C. over the whole of India with the
exception of the Dekhan. This prince interested himself not only in
Buddhism, which he professed in his later years, but he took care, in a
fatherly way, as he repeatedly relates, of all other religious sects in
his vast kingdom. In the fourteenth year of his reign, he appointed
officials, called law-superintendents, whose duty it was to watch over the
life of the different communities, to settle their quarrels, to control
the distribution of their legacies and pious gifts. He says of them in the
second part of the seventh 'pillar' edict, which he issued in the
twenty-ninth year of his reign, "My superintendents are occupied with
various charitable matters, they are also engaged with all sects of
ascetics and householders; I have so arranged that they will also be
occupied with the affairs of the _Sa[.m]gha_; likewise I have
arranged that they will be occupied with the Âjîvika Brâhma[n.]s; I have
arranged it that they will also be occupied with the Niga[n.][t.]ha".
[Footnote: See Senart, _Inscriptions de Piyadasi_, tom. II, p. 82.
Ed. VIII, l. 4. My translation differs from Senart's in some points
especially in relation to the construction. Conf. _Epigraphia
Indiea_, vol. II, pp. 272f.] The word _Sa[.m]gha_ serves here as
usual for the Buddhist monks. The Âjívikas, whose name completely
disappears later, are often named in the sacred writings of the Buddhists
and the Jainas as an influential sect. They enjoyed the special favour of
A['s]oka, who, as other inscriptions testify, caused several caves at
Baràbar to be made into dwellings for their ascetics. [Footnote: See
_Ind. Antiquary_, vol. XX, pp. 361 ff.] As in the still older writings
of the Buddhist canon, the name Niga[n.][t.]ha here can refer only to the
followers of Vardhamâna. As they are here, along with the other two
favourites, counted worthy of special mention, we may certainly conclude
that they were of no small importance at the time. Had they been without
influence and of small numbers A['s]oka would hardly have known of them,
or at least would not have singled them out from the other numerous
nameless sects of which he often speaks. It may also be supposed that they
were specially numerous in their old home, as A['s]oka's capital
Pâ[t.]aliputra lay in this land. Whether they spread far over these
boundaries, cannot be ascertained.

On the other hand we possess two documents from the middle of the next
century which prove that they advanced into south-eastern India as far as
Kali[.n]ga. These are the inscriptions at Kha[n.][d.]agiri in Orissa, of
the great King Khâravela and his first wife, who governed the east coast
of India from the year 152 to 165 of the Maurya era that is, in the first
half of second century B.C.

The larger inscription, unfortunately very much disfigured, contains an
account of the life of Khâravela from his childhood till the thirteenth
year of his reign. It begins with an appeal to the Arhat and Siddha, which
corresponds to the beginning of the five-fold form of homage still used
among the Jainas, and mentions the building of temples in honour of the
Arhat as well as an image of the first Jina, which was taken away by a
hostile king. The second and smaller inscription asserts that Khâravela's
wife caused a cave to be prepared for the ascetics of Kalinga, "who
believed on the Arhat." [Footnote: The meaning of these inscriptions,
which were formerly believed to be Buddhist, was first made clear by Dr.
Bhangvânlâl's Indrâji's careful discussion in the _Actes du Vlième
Congrès Internat. des Orientalistes_ Sect. Ary. pp. 135-159. H; first
recognised the true names of the King Khâravela and his predecessors and
shewed that Khâravela and his wife were patrons of the Jainas. We have to
thank him for the information that the inscription contains a date in the
Maurya Era. I have thoroughly discussed his excellent article in the
_Oesterreichischen Monatsschrift_, Bd. X, S. 231 ff. and have there
given my reasons for differing from him on an important point, namely, the
date of the beginning of the Maurya Era, which, according to his view
begins with the conquest of Kali[.n]ga by A['s]oka about 255 B. C. Even
yet I find it impossible to accept that the expression, "in the hundred
and sixty fifth year of the era of the Maurya Kings", can mean anything
else than that 164 years have passed between the thirteenth year of the
rule of Khâravela and the anointing of the first Maurya King Chandrugupta.
Unfortunately it is impossible to fix the year of the latter occurrence,
or to say more than that it took place between the years 322 and 312 B.C.
The date given in Khâravela's inscription cannot therefore be more closely
fixed than that it lies between 156 and 147 B.C. I now add to my former
remarks--that appeals to the Arhat and Siddha appear also in Jaina
inscriptions from Mathurâ and may be taken as a certain mark of the sect.
Thus it is worthy of note that even in Hiuen Tsiang's time, (Beal,
_Si-yu-ki_, Vol. II, p. 205) Kalinga was one of the chief seats of
the Jainas.]

From a somewhat later period, as the characters show, from the first
century B.C. comes a dedicatory inscription which has been found far to
the west of the original home of the Jainas, in Mathurà on the Jamnâ. It
tells of the erection of a small temple in honour of the Arhat Vardhamâna,
also of the dedication of seats for the teachers, a cistern, and a stone
table. The little temple, it says, stood beside the temple of the guild of
tradesmen, and this remark proves, that Mathurâ, which, according to the
tradition of the Jainas, was one of the chief scats of their religion,
possessed a community of Jainas even before the time of this inscription.
[Footnote: This inscription also was first made known by Dr Bhagwanlal
Indiaji, _loc. cit_. p. 143.]

A large member of dedicatory inscriptions have come to light, which are
dated from the year 5 to 98 of the era of the Indo-Skythian kings,
Kanishka, Huvishka, and Vâsudeva (Bazodeo) and therefore belong at latest
to the end of the first and to the second century A.D. They are all on the
pedestals of statues, which are recognisable partly by the special mention
of the names of Vardhamâna and the Arhat Mahâvíra, partly by absolute
nudity and other marks. They show, that the Jaina community continued to
flourish in Mathurâ and give besides extraordinarily important
information, as I found in a renewed research into the ancient history of
the sect. In a number of them, the dedicators of the statues give not only
their own names, but also those of the religious teachers to whose
communities they belonged. Further, they give these teachers their
official titles, still used among the Jainas: _vâchaka_, 'teacher',
and _ga[n.]in_, 'head of a school'. Lastly they specify the names of
the schools to which the teachers belonged, and those of their
subdivisions. The schools are called, _ga[n.]a_, 'companies'; the
subdivisions, _kula_, 'families' and _['s]âkhà_, 'branches'.
Exactly the same division into _ga[n.]a, ['s]âkhà_, and _kula_
is found in a list in one of the canonical works, of the ['S]vetâmbaras,
the _Kalpasûtra_, which gives the number of the patriarchs and of the
schools founded by them, and it is of the highest importance, that, in
spite of mutilation and faulty reproduction of the inscriptions, nine of
the names, which appear in the _Kalpasûtra_ are recognisable in them,
of which part agree exactly, part, through the fault of the stone-mason or
wrong reading by the copyist, are somewhat defaced. According to the
_Kalpasûtra_, Sushita, the ninth successor to Vardhamâna In the
position of patriarch, together with his companion Supratibuddha, founded
the 'Ko[d.]iya' or 'Kautika _ga[n.]a_, which split up into four
'_sâkhà_, and four '_kula_'. Inscription No. 4. which is dated
in the year 9 of the king Kanishka or 87. A.D. (?) gives us a somewhat
ancient form of the name of the _ga[n.]a Ko[t.]iya_ and that of one
of its branches exactly corresponding to the _Vairi ['s]àkhâ_.
Mutilated or wrongly written, the first word occurs also in inscriptions
Nos. 2, 6 and 9 as _koto-, ke[t.][t.]iya_, and _ka_ ..., the
second in No. 6 as _Vorâ_. One of the families of this
_ga[n.]a_, the _Vâ[n.]iya kula_ is mentioned in No. 6, and
perhaps in No. 4. The name of a second, the _Pra['s]navàha[n.]aka_,
seems to have appeared in No. 19. The last inscription mentions also
another branch of the Ko[t.]iya ga[n.]a, the _Majhimâ sâkhâ_, which,
according to the _Kalpasûtra,_ was founded by Priyagantha the second
disciple of Susthita. Two still older schools which, according to
tradition, sprang from the fourth disciple of the eighth patriarch, along
with some of their divisions appear in inscriptions Nos. 20 and 10. These
are the _Aryya-Udehikîya ga[n.]a_, called the school of the
Ârya-Roha[n.]a in the _Kalpasûtra_, to which belonged the
_Parihâsaka kula_ and the _Pûrnapâtrikâ ['s]âkhâ,_ as also the
_Charâ[n.]a ga[n.]a_ with the _Prîtidharmika kula._ Each of
these names is, however, somewhat mutilated by one or more errata in
writing. [Footnote: Dr. Bühler's long note (p. 48) on these inscriptions
was afterwards expanded in the _Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde des
Morgenlandes_ Bd. I, S. 165-180; Bd. II, S. 141-146. Bd. III, S.
233-240; and Bd. IV, S. 169-173. The argument of these papers is
summarised in. Appendix. A, pp. 48 ff.--Ed.] The statements in the
inscriptions about the teachers and their schools are of no small
importance in themselves for the history of the Jainas. If, at the end of
the first century A.D.(?) many separate schools of Jaina ascetics existed,
a great age and lively activity, as well as great care as regards the
traditions of the sect, may be inferred. The agreement of the inscriptions
with the _Kalpasûtra_ leads still further however: it proves on the
one side that the Jainas of Mathurâ were ['S]vetâmbara, and that the
schism, which split the sect into two rival branches occurred long before
the beginning of our era. On the other hand it proves that the tradition
of the Svetâmbara really contains ancient historic elements, and by no
means deserves to be looked upon with distrust. It is quite probable that,
like all traditions, it is not altogether free from error. But it can no
longer be declared to be the result of a later intentional
misrepresentation, made in order to conceal the dependence of Jainism on
Buddhism. It is no longer possible to dispute its authenticity with regard
to those points which are confirmed by independent statements of other
sects, and to assert, for example, that the Jaina account of the life of
Vardhamâna, which agrees with the statements of the Buddists, proves
nothing as regards the age of Jainism because in the late fixing of the
canon of the ['S]vetâmbaras in the sixth century after Christ it may have
been drawn from Buddhist works. Such an assertion which, under all
circumstances, is a bold one, becomes entirely untenable when it is found
that the tradition in question states correctly facts which lie not quite
three centuries distant from Vardhamâna's time, and that the sect, long
before the first century of our era kept strict account of their internal
affairs. [Footnote: See Weber's and Barth's opinions quoted above in note
I, p. 23.]

Unfortunately the testimony to the ancient history of the Jainas, so far
as made known by means of inscriptions, terminates here. Interesting as it
would be to follow the traces of their communities in the later
inscriptions, which become so numerous from the fifth century A.D. onwards
and in the description of his travels by Hiuen Tsiang, who found them
spread through the whole of India and even beyond its boundaries, it would
be apart from our purpose. The documents quoted suffice, however, to
confirm the assertion that during the first five centuries after Buddha's
death both the statements of Buddhist tradition and real historical
sources give evidence to the existence of the Jainas as an important
religious community independent of Buddhism, and that there are among the
historical sources some which entirely clear away the suspicion that the
tradition of the Jainas themselves is intentionally falsified.

The advantage gained for Indian history from the conclusion that Jainism
and Buddhism are two contemporary sects--having arisen in the same
district,--is no small one. First, this conclusion shows that the
religious movement of the sixth and fifth centuries B.C. in eastern India
must have been a profound one. If not only one, but certainly two, and
perhaps more reformers, appeared at the same time, preaching teachers, who
opposed the existing circumstances in the same manner, and each of whom
gained no small number of followers for their doctrines, the desire to
overthrow the Brahmanical order of things must have been generally and
deeply felt. This conclusion shows then that the transformation of the
religious life in India was not merely the work of a religious community.
Many strove to attain this object although separated from one another. It
is now recognisable, though preliminarily, in one point only, that the
religious history of India from the fifth century B.C. to the eighth or
ninth A.D. was not made up of the fight between Brahmanism and Buddhism
alone. This conclusion allows us, lastly, to hope that the thorough
investigation of the oldest writings of the Jainas and their relations
with Buddhism on the one hand and with Brahmanism on the other will afford
many important ways of access to a more exact knowledge concerning the
religious ideas which prevailed in the sixth and fifth centuries B.C., and
to the establishment of the boundaries of originality between the
different systems.




APPENDIX A.

Copies of the mutilated inscriptions referred to, were published by
General Sir A. Cunningham in his _Archaeological Survey Reports_,
vol. III, plates xiii-xv. Unfortunately they have been presented from
'copies' and are therefore full of errors, which are due for the most
part, doubtless, to the copyist and not to the sculptor. It is not
difficult, however, in most cases under consideration here, to restore the
correct reading. Usually only vowel signs are omitted or misread and,
here, and there, consonants closely resembling one another as _va_
and _cha, va_, and _dha, ga_ and _['s]a, la_ and _na_
are interchanged.

The formulae of the inscriptions are almost universally the same. First
comes the date, then follows the name of a reverend teacher, next, the
mention of the school and the subdivision of it to which he belonged. Then
the persons, who dedicated the statues are named (mostly women), and who
belonged to the community of the said teacher. The description of the gift
forms the conclusion. The dialect of the inscriptions shows that curious
mixture of Sansk[r.][)i]t and Prâk[r.][)i]t which is found in almost all
documents of the Indo-Skythian kings, and whichas Dr. Hoernle was the
first to recognise--was one of the literary languages of northern and
northwestern India during the first centuries before and after the
commencement of our era.

In the calculation of dates, I use the favourite starting point for the
era of the Indo-Skythian kings, which unfortunately, is not certainly
determined, and assume that it is identical with the _Saka_ era of
78-1/4 A.D. The rule of these princes could not have fallen later: in my
opinion it was somewhat earlier. [Footnote: What follows is from the
author's later and fuller paper in _Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des
Morgenlandes_, Bd. I, S. 170 f., but abridged.--Ed.] I give here
transcripts and restorations of such inscriptions as mention Jaina schools
or titles.

1. The inscription which is the most important for my purpose and at the
same time one of the best preserved, is Sir A. Cunningham's No. 6, plate
xiii, which was found on the base of a Jaina image (_Arch. Sur. Rep_.
vol. III, p. 31). The copy compared with a rubbing gives the following
reading, (the letters within parentheses are damaged):

L. 1. _Siddha[.m] sa[.m] 20 gramâ 1 di 10 + 5 ko([t.]i)yato ga[n.]ato
(Vâ)[n.]iyato kulato V(ai)r(i)to ['s]âkâto ['S]irikâto_

2. _(bha)ttito vâchakasya Aryya-Sa[.n]ghasihasya nir(v)varttana[.m]
Dattilasya.... Vi_.-

3. _lasya ko([t.]hu)bi(ki)ya Jayavâlasya Devadâsasya Nâgadinasya cha
Nâgadinâye cha (mâ)tu_.

4. _['s]râ(vi)kâye (D)i-_

5. _(nâ)ye dâna[.m]. i_

6. _Varddhamâna pra_-

7. _timâ_|

The lacuna in line 2, after _Dattilasya_, probably contained the word
_duhituye_ or _dhûtuye_ and part of a male name of which only
the letter _vi_ is visible. In l. 3, possibly _ko[t.]habiniye_
is to be read instead of _ko[t.]hubikiye_. As there is room for one
more letter at the end of the line, I propose to read _mâtuye_. In l.
5, _Dinâye_ would stand for _Dattâyâ[h.]_ and be the genitive of
a female name _Dinnâ_ or _Dattâ_, which has been shortened
_bhâmâvat_. There can be no doubt that the word _['s]rî_, or
_['s]iri_, which is required, has stood before _Vardhamâna_.
With these restorations the translation is as follows:

"Success! The year 20, summer (_month_) I, day 15. An image of
glorious Vardhamâna, the gift of the female lay-disciple Dinâ
[_i. e_. Dinnâ or Dattâ], the [_daughter_] of Attila, the wife
of Vi..la, the mother of Jayavâla [Jayapâla], of Devadâsa and Nâgadina
[_i. e_. Nâgadinna or Nâgadatta] and of Nâgadina [_i.e._ of
Nâgadinnâ or Nâgadattâ]--(_this statue being_) the _nirvartana_
[Footnote: The word _nirvartana_ has the meaning of 'in obedience
to the order', or 'in consequence of the request'. It occurs again in
the Prakrit form _nivatana[.m]_ below, in No. 10 (pl. xiv) and it
has stood in No. 4, and at the end of l. 2 of No. 7, where the rubbing
has _nirva_. It is also found in the next: _Arch. Sur. Rep._
vol. XX, pl. v, No. 6.] of the preacher Aryya-Sa[.n]ghasiha [_i.e._
Ârya-Sa[.n]ghasi[.m]ha], out of the Ko[t.]iya school, the Vâniya race,
the Vairi branch, the ['S]irikâ division".

The inscription given _Arch. Sur. Rep_. vol. XX, plate v, No. 6
reads, according to an excellent rubbing:

L. 1. _Namo Araha[.m]tânain namo Siddhâna sa[.m]_ 60 [Footnote:
In reading the first figure as 60, I follow Sir A. Cunningham. I have
never seen the sign, in another inscription. The characters of the
inscription are so archaic that this date may refer to an earlier
epoch than the Indo-Skythian.] + 2

2. _gra 3 di 5 etâye purvâye Rârakasya Aryakakasaghastasya_

3. _['s]ishyâ Âtapikogahabaryasya nirvartana chatnuvarnasya
sa[.m]ghasya_

4. _yâ dinnâ pa[t.]ibhâ[bho?]ga_ 1 (?) | (?) _Vaihikâya datti_|

"Adoration to the Arhats, adoration to the Siddhas! The year 62, the
summer (_month_) 3, the day 5; on the above date a _yâ_. was
given to the community, which includes four classes, as an enjoyment
(_or_ one share for each) (_this being_) the _nirvartana_
of Atapikogahabarya, the pupil of Arya-Kakasaghasta
(Ârya-Karka['s]agharshita), a native of Rârâ (Râ[d.]hâ). The gift of
Vaihikâ (_or_, Vaihitâ)."

2. With the inscription No. 6 of the year 20, No. 4 (plate xiii) agrees;
it was also found on a Jaina pedestal. With better readings from a rubbing
of the first side only, I propose for the other portions, of which I have
no rubbings, the following emendations,--l. 1, _Vâniyato kulato,
sâkhâto_; l. 2, _ku[t.]umbimye_; I also note that the lacuna in
line 2, 3th and 4th sides, would be filled exactly by _ye
['s]rî-Vardhamânasya pratimâ kâritâ sarvasattvâ_. The former existence
of the first and last seven letters may be considered certain. My
restoration of the whole is,--

L. 1 (1st side) _Siddha[.m] mahârâjasya Kanishkasya râjye
sa[.m]vatsare navame_ [Footnote: _Sac. Bks. East_, vol. XXII
p. 292.] (2nd side).. _mâsc pratha_ 1 _divase_ 5
_a-(3rd)[syâ[.m]] purvvâye Ko[t.]iyato ga[n.]ato Vâniya[to]_
(4th) _[ku]lato Vairito ['s]âkâto vâchaka_-

2. (1st side) _[sya] [N]âgana[m.]disa ni[rva]r[ta]na[.m] Brah[ma]_ ...
_[dhû-(2nd)tuye] Bha[t.][t.]umitasa ku[t.]u[[.m]]bi[n]i[ye]
Vika[t.]â-(3rd)[ye ['s]rî Vardhamânasya pratimâ kâritâ sarva_-(4th)
_satvâ]na[.m] hita_-

3. _[sukhâye]_;

and the translation:--

"Success! During the reign of the great king Kanishka, in the ninth
year, 9, in the first month, 1, of ..., on the day 5,--on the above
date [an image of glorious Vardhamâna has been caused to be made] for
the welfare [and happiness] of [all created beings] by Vikatâ, the
house-wife of Bha[t.][t.]imita (Bhat[t.]imitra) and [daughter of]
Brâhma ...--(this statue being) the _nirvartana_ of the preacher
Nâgana[.m]idi, out of the Ko[t.]iya school (_ga[n.]a_), the
Vâ[n.]iya line (_kula_), (and) the Vairi branch (_['s]âkhâ_)."


If we now turn to the _Kalpasûtra_, we find that Su[t.][t.]hiya or
Susthita, the eighth successor of Vardhamâna, founded the Kau[t.]ika or
Ko[d.]iya ga[n.]a, which split up into four ['s]âkhâs and four kulas. The
third of the former was the Vajrî or Vairî, and the third of the latter
was the Vâ[n.]îya or Vâ[n.]ijja. It is evident that the names of the
_ga[n.]a, kula_, and _['s]âkhâ_ agree with those mentioned in the
two inscriptions, Ko[t.]iya being a somewhat older form of Ko[d.]iya. But
it is interesting to note that the further subdivision of the Vairî
['s]âkhâ--the ['S]irikâ bhatti (Srikâ bhakti) which inscription No. 6
mentions, is not known to the _Kalpasûtra_. This is a gap such as may
by be expected to occur in a list handed down by oral tradition.

3. The Ko[t.]ika ga[n.]a is again mentioned in the badly mutilated
inscription No. 19, plate xv. A complete restoration is impossible.

L. 1. _Sa[.m]valsare 90 va...sya ku[t.]ubani. vadânasya vodhuya_...

2. _K|o[t.]iyato| ga[n.]ato |Pra['s]na|vâha|na|kato kulato
Majhamâto ['s]âkhâto...sa nikâye bhati gâlâe thabâni_...

It may, however, be inferred from the fragments of the first line that the
dedication was made by a woman who was described as the wife
(_ku[t.]umbinî_) of one person and as the daughter-in-law
(_vadhu_) of another. The first part of line 2, restored as above
gives--"in the congregation of ... out of the Ko[t.]iya school, the
Pra['s]navâhanaka line and the Majhamâ branch...." The restoration of the
two names Ko[t.]iya and Pra['s]navâhanaka seems to me absolutely certain,
because they exactly fill the blanks in the inscription, and because the
information in the _Kalpasûtra_ (S. B. E. vol. XXII, p. 293)
regarding the Madhyamâ['s]âkhâ points in that direction. The latter work
tells us that Priyagantha, the second pupil of Susthita and Supratibuddha,
founded a ['s]âkhâ, called Madhyamâ or Majhimâ.

As our inscriptions show that Professor Jacobi's explanation of the terms
_ga[n.]a, kula_ and _['s]âkhâ_ [Footnote: _S. B. E_. vol.
XXII, p. 288, note 2.] is correct and that the first denotes the school,
the second the line of teachers, and the third a branch which separated
from such a line, it follows that the ['s]âkhâs named in the
_Kalpasûtra_ without the mention of a _ga[n.]a_ and _kula_,
must belong to the last preceding _ga[n.]a_ and derive their origin
from one of its _kulas_. Hence the Madhyamâ ['s]âkhâ doubtless was
included in the Kau[t.]ika ga[n.]a, and an offshoot of one of its
_kulas_, the fourth of which is called Pra['s]navâhanaka or
Pa[n.]havâha[n.]aya. The correctness of these inferences is proved by
Râja['s]ckhara's statement regarding his spiritual descent at the end of
the _Prabandha kosha_, which he composed in Vik. sa[.m] 1405. He
informs us that he belonged to the Ko[t.]ika ga[n.]a, the Pra['s]navâhana
kula, the Madhyamâ ['s]âkhâ, the Harshapurîya gachha and the Maladhâri
samtâna, founded by the illustrious Abhayasûri.

For the last words of l. 2 I do not dare to propose an emendation; I
merely note that the gift seems to have consisted of pillars,
_thabâni_, i. e. _stambhâ[h.]_.

4. The Ko[t.]iya ga[n.]a seems finally to be mentioned
in pl. xiii, No. 2, where the copy of line 1, 2nd
side may be corrected as,--

_Siddha--sa 5 he 1 di 10 + 2 asyâ purvvâye Ko[t.](iya)_.

5.  Names of an older _ga[n.]a_ and of one of its
_kulas_ occur in No. 10 plate xiv, where the copy,
which is faulty, may allow the following partial
restoration,---

L. 1. _Sa 40 + 7 gra 2 di 20 etasyâ purvvâye
Vâra[n.]e ga[n.]e Petidhamikakulavâchakasya Rohanadisya
sîsasya Senasya nivatanam sâvaka-Da_

2. ..._pashâ[n.]avadhaya Giha..ka.bha..
prapâ [di]nâ..mâ ta_...

which I translate--

"The year 47, the summer (month) 2, the day 20,--on the above date a
drinking fountain was given by ..., the ... of the lay-disciple Da ...
(this being) the _nivatana_ of Sena the pupil of Rohanadi
(Rohanandi) and preacher of the Petidhamika (Praitidharmika) line, in
the Vâra[n.]a school."

_Varane_ must be a mistake for the very similar word _Chârane_.
The second _kula_ of this _ga[n.]a_ which, according to the
_Kalpasûtra_ (_S.B.E_. vol. XXII, p. 291) was founded by
['S]rîgupta, the fifth pupil of Ârya Suhastin, is the Prîtidharmika
(p. 292). It is easy to see that a similar name is hidden in the compound
_Petivamikakutavâchakasya_ 'of the preacher of the Petivâmika line';
and an inscription excavated by Dr. Fuhrer at Mathurâ mentions the
Petivâmika (_kula_) of the Vârana _ga[n.]a_. With the second
line little can be done: if the letters _prapâ_ are correct and form
a word, one of the objects dedicated must have been a drinking fountain.

6. The inscription No. 20, plate xv offers likewise slightly corrupt and
mutilated names of a _ga[n.]a_, a _kula_ and a _sâkhâ_,
mentioned in the _Kalpasûtra_. In the lithographed copy lines 3-7 are
hopeless and there is no rubbing to help. The word _thitu_ 'of a
daughter' in line 6, and the following _ma.uya_ which is probably a
misreading of _mâtuye_ 'of the mother' show that this dedication also
was made by a female. The last four syllables _vato maho_ are
probably the remnant of another namaskâra--_namo bhagavato
Mahâvîrasya._ As regards the proper names, Aryya Rehiniya is an
impossible form; but on comparison with the next inscription to be
mentioned, it is evident that the stone must have read
_Aryvodchikiyâto_ or _Aryyadehikiyâto ga[n.]â[to]_. [Footnote:
_Wiener Zeitshe. f. d. Kunde der Morgenl._, Bd. II, S. 142 f.]
According to the _Kalpasûtra_ (_S.B.E_. vol. XXII, p. 291)
Ârya-Roha[n.]a was the first pupil of Ârya Suhastin and founded the Uddeha
ga[n.]a. The latter split up into four ['s]âkhâs and into six kulas. The
name of its fourth ['s]âkhâ, Pûr[n.]apatrikâ, closely
resembles--especially in its consonantal elements--that of the inscription,
_Petaputrikâ_, and I do not hesitate in correcting the latter to
_Ponapatrikâ_ which would be the equivalent of Sansk.
Paur[n.]apatrikâ. Among the six kulas is the Parihâsaka, and considering
the other agreements, I believe it probable that the mutilated name read
as _Puridha.ka_ is a misreading of _Parihâka_, We may emend the
first two times and read as follows,--

L. 1. _Siddha|m| namo arahato Mahâvir|a|sya devanâ['s]asya
| râjña  Vâsudevasya sa[.m]vatsare 90 + 8
varshamâse + divase 10 | 1 etasyâ_.

2. _purvv|â|y|e| Aryyo-D|e|h|i|kiyâto ga[n.]â|to|
P|a|vi|hâsa|k|a|kula|to| P|ou|ap|a|trikât|o| ['s]âkâto ga[n.]|i|sya
Aryya-Devadatta|sya| na_... ...

3. _ryya-Kshemasya_

4. _prakagiri[n.]e_

5. _kihadiye prajâ_

6. _tasya Pravarakasya dhitu Vara[n.]asya gatvakasya
ma|t|uya Mitra(?)sa ...datta gâ_

7. _ye..|namo bhaga|vato mah|âvîrasya|_

and the translation (so far) will be,--

"Success! Adoration to the Arhat Mahâvirâ, the destroyer(?) of the gods.
In the year of king Vâsudeva, 98, in the month 4 of the rainy season, on
the day 11--on the above date ... of the chief of the school
(_ga[n.]in_) Aryya-Devadata (Devadatta) out of the school
(_ga[n.]a_) of the Aryya-Udehikîya (Ârya-Uddehikiya), out of the
Parihâsaka line (_kula_), out of the Ponapatrikâ (Paur[n.]apatrikâ)
branch (_['s]âkhâ_)." [Footnote: At a later date Dr. Bühler added
other proofs from inscriptions of the authenticity of the Jaina
tradition, in the _Vienna Oriental Journal_, vol. II, pp. 141-146;
vol. III, pp. 233-240; vol. IV, pp. 169-173, 313-318; vol. V, pp.
175-180; and in _Epigraphia Indica_, vol. I pp. 371-397; vol. II,
pp. 195-212, 311. The paragraphs given above are chiefly from his first
paper in the _Vienna Oriental Journal_ (vol. I, pp. 165-180), which
appears to be an extended revision of the long footnote in the original
paper on the Jainas, but it is here corrected in places from readings in
his later papers.--J. B.]

These and many other statements in the inscriptions, about the teachers
and their schools are of no small importance in themselves for the early
history of the Jainas. The agreement of the above with the
_Kalpasûtra_ can best be shown by placing the statements in question
against one another. The inscriptions prove the actual existence of twenty
of the subdivisions mentioned in the Sthavirâvali of the