________________
28
तत्वानुशासन
candra. Taking all these points into account, Pt. Jugalkishore assigns Ramasena circa probably to the last quarter of the tenth century of the Vikrama era.
After thus assigning Ramasena to the 10th century of the vikrama era,Pt. Jugalkıshore proposes identification of his teacher Mahendradea with one of that name who is mentioned by Somadeva in his Nītivākyāmrta. This identification he takes as suniscita, 1. e., definite and certain. If any one had reached a conclusion like this, Pt Jugalkıshore Mukhtar would have perhaps argued with his usual pleader's zest like this: 1) we do not possess the census of all the Mahendradevas in the tenth century of the vikrama era, and it cannot be ruled out that there was some other Mahendradeva also at that time than the one mentioned by Somadeva, 11) it is well-known that very often teachers having the same name flourihsed at one and the same time, iii) Somadeva has not indicated that Mahendradeva had a pupil by name Ramasena; lastly, iv) Ramasena has not described his teacher Mahendradeva with the titles, bhattarraka and vadindra-kalanala. So this proposed identity is based primarily on the similarity of name and nothing more, thus it is a matter of probablity and not certainty.
Pt. Jugalkishore has taken Srivijaya and Vijayadeva as identical names He identifies, therefore, Vijayadeva with one Srivijaya (after ruling out other known Srivijayas) who is mentioned by Padmanandı in his Jambudivapannatti and who belongs approximately to the period to which Ramasena is assigned (Intro. p. 48.)
