Indian Antiquary Vol 31

SR No.: 032523
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Richard Carnac Temple
Publisher: Swati Publications
Publication Year: 1984
Total Pages: 556
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 19 MB

Page 199

APRIL, 1902.]
INSORIPTIONS OF MAHANAMAN.
195
with the permission of Maha Sri Raja, was specially assigned for the accommodation of priests from Ceylon, who could this enjoy independence, and be in a position to claim from the Indians honourable treatment as brethren."
The reader will observe that Hiuen Tsiang does not name the king of Ceylon, and that he calls the Indian monarch, Maha Sri Raja, omitting his personal name. I need hardly say that the Gupta sovereigns always prefixed Set to their personal names, and assumed the title of Maharajadhiraja.
Hiuen Triang mentions only one envoy, the brother of the island king, whereas WangHinen-t'se states that there were two envoys, and does not mention that either of them was related to the Ceylonese monarch. But the differences between the two accounts do not amount to discrepancies, and I have no doubt that the Mahabodhi monastery adjoining the northern wall of the Bodhi tree enclosure was built at the expense of King Méghavarna of Ceylon by permission of Samudra Gupta, king of India.
According to the Mahavasisa, King Mêghavarna (Kitti Siri Meghavanna) reigned from A. D. 804 to 832. It is possible that these dates may be liable to some slight adjustment, but a special enquiry undertaken by M. Sylvain Lévi has satisfied him that the Ceylonese chronology for the period in question is trustworthy. There is not, I believe, any reason to doubt the substantial accuracy of the Ceylonese dates even from the much earlier tince of Dutthagêmanî, about B. C. 161, althongh the dates prior to his reign are not to be trusted.
Consequently, if the Mabâniman, who set up the inscription in the year 269 was the Mahkaman deputed with Upa-? by King Meghavarna, his visits to Bodh-Gaya must have occurred between 804 and 332. The possible limits of time are further circumscribed by the fact that Samudra Gupta was contemporaneous with Meghavarna. Samudra Gupta cannot well have begun to reign before A. D. 326 or 327.5 If Mahânåman of the inscription is identical with the envoy of Meghavarpa, his visits to Bodh-Gaye must be dated in round nambers in A. D. 330, and the era used in his inscription must be approximately (330 - 269 =) A. D. 61.
The difficulty caused by the fact that the Saka era begins in A. D. 78 is met by M, L Svi with the remark that the discrepanoy is small. An error of some seventeen years in the Ceylonese chronology is, however, hardly consistent with M. Levi's statement of the result of his special enquiry as being that "l'exactitade des Anpales singalaises sort victorieuse de cette confrontation." The date 269, when interpreted as in the Saks era, is equivalent to A. D. 347, fifteen years after Meghavarna's decease.
This considerable discrepancy is a strong, if not fatal, objection to M. Lévi's interpretation of the date of the inscription.
Another weighty objection arises from the fact that, so far as is at present known, the Saka era was not used in Northern India in the fourth century. The earliest known example of its use in a northern inscription is supplied by the second prasasti of Baijnath dated Saka-kdla-gatabdáh 7[26]; and the next example is as late as Saka 1059. This second example happens to come from Govindpur in the Gaya District.
Beal, II. 183-185.
+ These are the dates given in Wijesimha's revised translation of the Mahaparisa and differ slightly from those given by Turnour, A. D. 802 and 830.
• I shall discuss the dates of Samudra Gapta's reign in a separate paper.
• In Kielhorn's List of the Inscriptions of Northern India' (App.to Epigraphia Indica, Vol. V.), the eight earliest insoriptions dated in the Baka era, exoluding Assam and Orissa, are No. 851, Baijoith, year 7(26), No. 362, Govindpur, year 1050; No. 868, MAchAll near Alwar, year 1804; No. 879, Nagart near Chitor, year 1426, No. 381, Tilbógampar near Delhi, year 1480 ; No. 883, 8 dadt in Mewar, year 1690; No. 385, Chambh, year 1582; and No. 386, Udaypur, year 1635. I agree generally with M. Boyer's views concerning the Baks era, and am convinoed that it sroes in Western India, Kanishka having nothing to do with its et
othing to do with its establishment, and not using it. (Journal Asiatique, Mai Juin, 1900, p. 526, ikid. Juillet Aodt, 1897.) Dr. Fleet informa me that the century in the Baijnath pralasli is probably to be resd as 9, not as 7. The year 926 Baka would correspond to Kill Ynga 4105, and to Laukika [40]80.