Page:The Indian Antiquary Vol 2.djvu/220

 196 THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY. [July, 1673. In dr a, assuming the form of a Brahman, will take the part of tho persecuted, and Kalkin will die in his 87th year. His son and successor D a 11 a will be instructed in the Jaina doctrine by Sakra himself, and will, under the guidance ofPratipada, build chaityas for many Arhats. He will erect also many sanctuaries ; among others also on Mount Satrunjaya in Surashtra, and in Aryan and non-Aryan Indian countries he will every¬ where cause temples to be built for the Jainas, according to the instructions of his guru or spiritual teacher. Now so far as the inducement to the above two tales is concerned, the raid of the Mud- galas into Surftshtra, Lata, and the adjoining countries is referable only to the invasion of Mahmud the Ghaznivide in the years 1025 and 1026, during which he plun¬ dered the rich temple of S o m a n a t h a, in the peninsula of Gujarat, and on his return inarch reached also the capital, A n a 1 a v a d a,# —especially as this event is placed before the time ofKumarapala. The name Mudgala is most correctly explained from the Sanskrit word mudgala, hafhmer, and understood to mean the smashing power of the foreign invad¬ ers. It is difficult to discover the basis of the second narrative, because several miracles and incredible events are mixed up with it, e. g. the disinterment of the stupa of King N a n d a, and the appearance of the stone-cow Lagnadevi. Further, the ancient capital Pataliputra had long ceased to exist at the time to which I think the reign of K a 1 k i n must be referred; and the reign of D a 11 a also over Aryan aud non-Aryan India is evidently a fiction. If this tale be divested of its fabulous addi¬ tions : Kalkin persecuted the Jainas but there¬ by lost his life, whilst his son D a 11 a zealously * * * §* See Tint. Alt. III. p. 558 seqq. The above explanation of tho name has been proposed by A. Weber, p. 41, note 2. + Namely, according to XIV. v. 101 seqq. p. 92, Pan- c ham nr a, the pupil of V ! r a, died 3 years and 8jl months after the demise of his teacher, and Vikramarka or V ikram&ditya lived 46G years li months after him, but S iladity a, according to above, p. 195,477 years after him. Tho numbers give 94G years and 10 months, or nearly 947 vears. The passage about the age of V i k r a ru & d i t y a is literally as follows: “3 years and 81 months after tho death of Vira, the law-purifying Panchamfira will appear; 4(>6 years and li months afterwards Vikra¬ marka will, according to the instruction of Siddhasenfi, govern tho earth according to the Jina doctrine, and su¬ perseding our (i.e. the Jaina) era will propagate his own. X Time of the building of some of the larger temples at Satrunjaya.—Ed. § See Ind. Alt. III. 517- protected them. According to the chronology of the Satruhjayamulidtmya, Kalkin was born 1914 years after the death of.V i r a ; this- event is placed 947 years before the reign of S i 1 a- dityaf. As, according to the statement of Dhanesvara, this monarch began his reign A. d. 555, the appearance of Kalkin falls under the year 1522,J i. e. at a time when the history of inner India contains no informa¬ tion whatever about the reign of a dynasty favourable to the Jaina doctrine. Accordingly I do not hesitate in the least to consider the tale about the acts of Kalkin and of his son Da11a as inventions of Dhanesvara, whose intention it was, by means of them, to open out to his co-religionists the vista of a happy future. To this also point the words with which the narrative closes : “ During the reign of his son D a 11 a prosperity and plenty will reign everywhere, the rulers will be just, the ministers benevolent, and the people will ob¬ serve the law.” After the preceding examination of the pro¬ phetic portion of the Satniiijayamdhdtmya, I con¬ sider myself justified in placing the composition of this book in the age after the invasions of M a h m d d of Ghazni; in favour of this view I also point to the destruction of the temple of Balaramaand Krishna at Mathura, attributed to Kalkin, because Mahmud in 1017 actually demolished the celebrated tem¬ ple of Krishna which was situated there. § If this view is incontrovertible, as I believe it to be, the work in question must either have two au¬ thors, or, if it has only one, he can at the earliest, have written only in the first half of the 11th century; but, after all, the uniformity of the clear and simple style of both portions of this book, composed in slokas, militates against tho assumption of two authors.|| I leave it unde- j| For this reason A. Weber compares (passim, p. 14) tho style with that of Bhattikdvija, tho author whereof was, according to Ind. Alt. III. p. 512, a contemporary of £ ridharasena the first; here, however, he overlooks that Somadova, who lived much later under Harsha, a king of Kasmir, uses just as simplo and clear language. Tho same observes (passim, p. 15) that the author of tho work in question makes use of several words which elsewhere at least are rare. The connection smardnn/asmi which occurs X. 153, sins directly against classic usage, because asmi is a superfluous addition. The comparison with the formation of the auxiliary future of the conditional and of the four first forms of the aorist does not suit, because here the auxiliary verb is fused with the thema into a single form, tho formation whereof philology alone has discovered. Similarly the examples cited in Boehtlingk-Roth’s Sans¬ krit Wiirterbuche, 1. p. 53C. do not belong to this, because they are forms of the participial future in -ta, which forma are followed by many tenses of the auxiliary verb.