subsequent to the disappearance of the Bauddhas in India." Now, in the first place, I do not know on what authority the word Kshapanaka is limited to the narrow meaning stated by Professor Wilson. In the Panchatantra, which may be supposed to be earlier than the "period" to which Professor Wilson refers, the name is certainly applied to the Jainas.* And so is it in Govindânanda's commentary on the S'ârîraka Bhâshya, and in the Prabodhachandrodaya++ which though, perhaps, belonging to somewhere about that "period," ** still very clearly distinguish the Bauddhas from the Jainas. I confess I have a suspicion that Professor Wilson was himself probably confounding Ksĥapanaka and Śramaņaka. This latter word is, undoubtedly, employed very frequently to, signify the Bauddhas. Thus, in the Mŗììchchhakațika, the ascetic, who is there certainly meant to be taken as a Bauddha is called either Śramanaka or Bhikshuş*॥ and never, be it added in passing, Kshapaņaka. But although the word S'ramanaka is most usually employed to signify Buddhists, even that word is not strictly con-,
- See Tantra V., and Cf. Indian Antiquary, Vol. II, p. 194; also Wilson's
Essays, Vol. II., pp. 20, (where Professor Wilson traces a similar confusion in, the Panchatantra) 51, 76. The truth seems to be that the two sects are too much interlaced one with another for any such conclusion being based on these circumstances. In addition to what is said in the text, we have to remember, that S'râvaka, for instance, which Professor Wilson takes as referring to Jainas only (see Hindu Theatre, pp. 215-21), is also applied to Bauddhas. See interalia Beal's Fa-Hian, pp. 9-47, Cunningham's Bharhut Stûpa, p. 110. Other similar words, besides Arhat and Jina, mentioned in the text, are Thera and Bhadanta (or, in its Prâkrit forms Bhayanta or Bhante), which occur frequently in the Inscriptions on the Amarâvatî Stúpa and in our Western India Cave, Inscriptions. Cf. on all this J. R. A. S. Vol. XVI. p. 361; Vol. XVII., p. 117 (N.S.); Vol. II., p. 140; Burgess's Arch. Surv. Report, Vol. IV., pp 92, 112; Beal's Fa Hian, p. 5; Cave Temple Inscriptions by Dr. Burgess and Pandit Bha- gvânlal, pp. 7, 11, 37, 76, and many other places; Burgess's Amrâvatî Stúpa, pp. 41, 54. See also Brihatsımhitâ, ch. LI., st. 20-21, with which cf. Burnell's S. Indian Paleography, pp 12 (n), 47 (n), Bhârhut Stûpa, p. 83; Journal Ceylon Asiatic Society (1845) p. 24, (1847) p. 19, (1856-8) p. 247; Indian Antiquary, Vol. XI., p. 29. Roth's Hemachandra, p 58. See S'ankara Bhâshya (Bib., Ind. ed.), P. 591 and p. 497. Harshacharita, p. 16; Ânandagiri's S'ankaravijnya, p. 153 ct scq.» Aufrecht's Halayudha. p. 38. (The entry in the Index is erroneous). Hindu Theatre Vol. I, p. 56, and Das'akumâracharita with commentary (ed. by Messrs. Godbole and Parab), p. 189. Ditto (Bomb. Class. ) p. 54 and note thereon. # pp. 55-8 ॥*See as to this Capningham's Arch. Sury. Roport, Vol. IX., p. 108. and also cf J. B. B. R. A. S. Vol. III., p. 312. $See pp. 93, 238-9. and Hindu Theatre, Vol. I, p. 56. 10 PO
