Elements of South-Indian Palæography, from the Fourth to the Seventeenth Century A.D. c5.s3.3

c5.s3.3

[^1): Tölkāppiyam, i., 14 mentions the V. forms of p and m. [^2): According to the Vīraśoḻiyam, a highly Sanskritized Tamiḻ Grammar of the 11th century, Agastya got his knowledge from Avalokita! But the author’s name Puttamittiran (Buddhamitra) shows his religion plainly enough. [^3): The Pāṇḍya kingdom (*e. g.*) is mentioned in the Açoka inscriptions (250 B. C.) by Ptolemy (vii., 1, 11, vol. ii., p. 143. ed. Nobbe) in the second century A. D. and by the Periplus in the third century A. D. The Mahāvamso (ed. Turnour) makes Vijayo (543 B. C.!) marry the daughter of the king of Dakkhina Madhura called “Panduwo” (p. 51), I do not find any subsequent mention of the Pāṇḍyas in this very monkish chronicle. I put the date of the Periplus at the third century A. D. following Reinaud. [^4): Malakūṭa is mentioned in the Tanjore inscription, and there can be little doubt that the Coḷa kingdom of Tanjore is to be understood by it and not Madura as has been supposed. [^5): “Voyages des Pèlerins Bouddhistes” iii., p. 121. [^6): I proposed the identification of the Nirgranthas with the Jains (in *I. A.* i., p. 310, *n.*) on the ground that in the Jain Atthapāhuḍaka (*i. e.* Ashṭaprābhṛitaka) Nirgrantha is constantly used as an epithet of the true (Digambara) Jains, and that, therefore, it could not be referred to the Brahmans as had always been done hitherto, and also on the ground of probability, as *e. g.* Hiouen-Thsang’s account (iii., p. 27) of the Nirgranthas is much more likely of Jains than of Brahmans; but I have since got additional information which makes my identification certain, and can leave no doubt that Jain ascetics are intended by the word ‘niggantha’ (nirgrantha), though the word is now not understood by the Jains.