^xxxi:2 This legend is rejected as absurd by the Digambaras, but the Svetambaras staunchly uphold its truth. As it is found in the Akaranga, the Kalpa Sutra, and many other books, it cannot be doubted that it is very old. However, it is not at all clear for what reason so absurd a legend could have been invented and have gained currency. Yet I may be allowed to offer my opinion on this dark point. I assume that Siddhartha had two wives, the Brahmani Devananda, the real mother of Mahavira, and the Kshatriyani Trisala; for the name of the alleged husband of the former, viz. Rishabhadatta, cannot be very old, because its Prakrit form would in that case probably be Usabhadinna instead of Usabhadatta. Besides, the name is such as could be given to a Gaina only, not to a Brahman. I therefore make no doubt that Rishabhadatta has been invented by the Gainas in order to provide Devananda with another husband. Now Siddhartha was connected with persons of high rank and great influence through his marriage with Trisala. It was, therefore, probably thought more profitable to give out that Mahavira was the son, and not merely the step-son of Trisala, for this reason, that he should be entitled to the patronage of her relations. This story could all the more easily have gained credence as Mahavira's parents were dead many years when he came forward as a prophet. But as the real state of things could not totally have been erased from the memory of the people, the story of the transfer of the embryos was invented. The latter idea was not an original conception of the Gainas, but it is evidently borrowed from the Puranic story of the transfer of the embryo of Krishna from the womb of Devaki to that of Rohini. The worship of Krishna seems to have been popular during the first centuries of the development of the Gaina creed; for the Gainas have reproduced the whole history of Krishna, with small alterations, in relating the life of the twenty-second Tirthakara, Arishtanemi, who was a famous Yadava.

^xxxii:1 Max Muller, The Hibbert Lectures, p. 343.

^xxxii:2 Chapter x, 4. Buhler's translation.

^xxxvi:1 See Indische Studien, XVI.

^xxxvi:2 See Dr. Klatt, Ind. Ant. XI.

^xxxvii:1 It is possible, but not probable, that the date of the redaction fell sixty years later, 514 (527) A.D.; see Kalpa Sutra, introduction, p. 15.

^xxxviii:1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiii, introduction, p. xxxiii.

^xxxix:1 Among the latter Arava may denote the Arabs, as Weber thinks, or, as I prefer to think, the Tamils, whose language is called Aravamu by the Dravidians.

^xxxix:2 See Weber, Indische Studien, XVI, p. 237.

^xl:1 I do not contend that no double forms of any word were current at any time, for there must have been a good many double forms, but I doubt that r early every word should have existed in two or three forms.