Epigraphia Indica Vol 09

SR No.: 032563
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: E Hultzsch, Sten Konow
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India
Publication Year: 1907
Total Pages: 498
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 28 MB

Page 247

190
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[Vol. IX.
Freiti to whom the temple was dedicated. The second name is Pratihâra Botaka, the first of which words I think signifies the race. Bôtaka was thus a Pratihara, i.e. Padiar, and this is the earliest instance of the denomination Pratihara occurring in an inscription. The third name is rijasthiniya Adityabhata, the first part of which is unquestionably an official designation, meaning the foreign secretary.
Prof. Kielhorn thinks that the name of Varmalata spoken of in our inscription as paramount sovereign settles the date of the poet Magha. It would be impossible not to agree with him when he says, that, out of the numerous forms found in the manuscripts of the Sisupalavadha, of the name of the king at whose court Magba's grandfather Saprabhadeva is stated to have held the office of prime minister, the variant Varmalâta is to be selected as the most likely one. But to the identification of this prince with the Varmalâta of our inscription, supposing the date V.E. 682 to be correct, it is possible to raise an objection. As every student who has read the Sisupilavadha knows, Magha in his work distinctly alludes to the two grammatical treatises, the Kiisikiivritti and its commentary called Nyasa. The former is the joint production of Jayaditya and Våmana, and, with regard to the former author, the Chinese traveller I-tsing informs us in unmistakeable terms that he died about A.D. 661-662. It should, moreover, be borne in mind that the author of the Nyasa was Jinêndrabuddhi, who like JayAditya was a follower of the Buddha. And it is inconceivable that I-tsing, one of whose principal objects in coming to India was to collect information about Buddhist authors, could have passed him over in silence, if the latter had fourished before A.D. 695 when the Chinese traveller's departure from India took place. The conclusion is, therefore, irresistible that the author of the Nyasa could not have lived before the first half of the 8th century. Mågha, therefore, has to be assigned to the latter part of the 8th century. This line of argument adduced by Prof. Pathak appears to me to be worth considering. Dr. Konow, however, informs me that he does not think it convincing. He says, "the argumentum ex silentio is always unsafe, and, even if we admit that Jinêndrabuddhi cannot have written before A.D. 695, that does not disprove Professor Kielhora's identification of our Varmalâta with the king whose minister Magha's grandíather was. Our inscription may very well date from a time previous to his appointment as minister, and it does not, at any rate, make it impossible to bring Magha down to the first twenty years of the 8th century. There is nothing to hinder us from supposing that Jinêndrabuddhi Hourished about A.D. 700. The alleged reference to his work in the Sisupalatadha would, I think, be more intelligible if we suppose it to have been a new work at the time when Magha wrote his poem."
I quite accept Dr. Konow's main conclusions. But I agree with Professor Pathak that the argumentum ex silentio carries some weight in this particular instance. One of the chief objects I-tsing had in view was to gather all available information about Buddhist authors in India. And, when we consider that he has even mentioned his own contemporaries, it is very unlikely that he should have failed to notice Jinêndrabuddhi, if the latter had actually achieved fame in his time. As pointed oat by Dr. Konow, there is, however, nothing to prevent us from considering Magha and Jinêndrabuddhi as contemporaries. The mere fact that one author quotes another one, only shows that he knows him, and not necessarily that he belongs to a later time. Mågba and Jinêndrabuddhi can, therefore, very well both have lived at the beginning of the eighth century, and Professor Kielhorn's identification of the two Varmal&tas remains unaffected by Professor Pathak's argument.
1 History of Gujarat in the Bombay Gazetteer, Vol. I. Pt. I. p. 82.
? It might perhaps be doubted whether Jinêndrabuddhi was a Buddhist. But there are no reasonable grounds for this doubt. A Deccan Collego manuscript (No. 33 of 1881-82, lest 90b) has the following · Iti bodhisattadástya acharya-Dvijd(Jind)ndrabutdi(ddmi)-virachitaydıKafikd-vivarana-panchikdyáth doitly.ddhydyasya chatur. than pddah. I am indebted to Prof. Pathak for this reference. See also Ind. Ant. Vol. VII. p. 57.
Jour. Bo. As. Soc. Vol. XX, PP. 805-6.