A Few Notes on Pusyamitra and the Sunga Empire
By Puran Chand Samsookha
Summary
The text critiques Rai Bahadur Ramaprasad Chanda's interpretation of a Hathigumpha inscription and Jaina Agamas. It argues that Chanda's translation of "Kaliyasuyassa" as referring to the eleventh Anga (Kaliya Sutra) is incorrect, noting that the term encompasses all eleven Angas and other Sutras. The text highlights discrepancies in Chanda's reading of the inscription's 16th line, questioning his interpretation of "satikaitariyam" as "seven inter-Jina periods," which the author deems far-fetched. Instead, it suggests "Angasatikam-turiyam" (seven Angas and four Mulasiitras) as a more plausible reading, attributing the limited recension of Agamas during Kharavela's time to political instability following the decline of Maurya and Shunga power. The text further refutes Chanda's claim linking the recension to Digambara traditions, emphasizing that Svetambara Jains restored only the eleven Angas composed by Sudharma, not lost texts from earlier periods. It concludes that the inscription's reference to partial recension aligns with historical context, rejecting Chanda's broader claims about Anga restoration and sectarian divisions.
Conclusion
This analysis challenges Rai Bahadur Ramapracad Chanda's interpretations of the Hathigumpha Inscription and Jaina textual history, arguing that his readings of "Kaliyasuyassa" and "satikaitariyam" are linguistically inconsistent with Jain canonical terminology. It proposes that Kharavela's recension of the Agamas likely referred only to the seven available Angas, given the political upheavals following the decline of the Shungas, rather than all eleven lost Angas as previously assumed. The document emphasizes the need for greater precision in connecting epigraphic evidence with post-Mahavira Jaina textual traditions, suggesting regional recensions and political circumstances influenced the transmission of scriptures. The implications highlight the complexity of reconstructing ancient Indian religious history and the risks of overinterpreting fragmentary evidence without broader contextual awareness.