e 
306 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [N.S., XVI, 
is not an easy task to reconcile the divergent versions 
Pétaliputrakalpa of Jinaprabhasuri, the well-known Jain 
therefore, probably like that of Dhritarashtra of the Great Epic 
and though nominally regarded as the sovereign, he was 
is described by the Jain and Buddhist authorities as the 
immediate successor of Asoka. 
Kunala’s son was Bandhupalita according to the Vayu 
‘Purana, and Samprati(Sampadi) according to the Divyavadana 
and the Pataliputrakalpa. Either these princes were identical 
or they were brothers. If the latter view be correct then 
Bandhupalita must be identified with Dasaratha whose reality 
Indrapalita must be identified with Samprati or Salisika 
according as we identify Bandhupalita with Dagaratha or 
Samprati. In the matter of the propagation of the Jain faith, 
Jain records speak as highly of Sampratias Buddhist records 
de of Asoka. Jinaprabhasuri says, ‘‘ in Pataliputra flourished 
the great king Samprati, son of Kunala, lord of Bharata, with 
its three continents, the great Arhanta who established viharas 
for Sramanas even in non-Aryan countries.” Dr. Smith shows 
good grounds for believing that the dominions of Samprati 
included Avanti and Western India. 
The existence of Salisika is proved not only by the 
testimony of the Vishnu Purana but also by that of the Gargi 
Samhita and the e Vayu manuscript referred to by Mr. Pargiter. 
Is he identical with Vrihaspati, son of Samprati, according to 
the Divyavadana ? 
Devavarman and Somasarman are variant readings of the 
sa me. The same is the case with Satadhanus and 
Satadhanvan. It is not easy to identify Vrishasena and 
Pushyadharma, Possibly they are merely birudas of Devavar- 
man and Satadhanvan. 
The last Maurya, Brihadratha, is mentioned not only in 
