________________
298
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
terminus a quo as well as a terminus ad quem to limit our chronological uncertainty." And the Professor then divides the interval between the two termini as stated above.
Now we think that, plausible as this reasoning appears, there is a flaw in it. What proof have we that the Udayana who has commented on Vâchaspati Miéra is the same with the Udayana who wrote the Kusumânjali? Independently of any light which may be thrown upon this question by other considerations, the fact itself cannot be assumed as beyond controversy. On the contrary, we think there is positive evidence calculated to upset such a conclusion, and we propose here to set forth that evidence.
In the introduction to his edition of Vâchaspati Misra's Sânkhyatattvakaumudi, Professor Târânâth Tarkavâchaspati of Calcutta mentions that Vâchaspati Miéra has written a work in answer to the Khandanakhandakhadya of Śrî Harsha, entitled Khandanoddhâra.† We do not know from whence this information is derived: it may be from the enumeration of his own works said to be given by Vâchaspati Misra in his Bhâmatinibandha, to which we have not access, and the Khandanoddhâra has no place in the list reproduced by Dr. Hall. If, therefore, Dr. Hall's list omits nothing that is in the list as given in the Bhâmati, and if that list includes all the works written by Vâchaspati Misra, the statement made by Prof. Târânâth ceases to have any weight. We find it difficult, however, to understand how the statement could have been made without some sufficient authority, and if there is such authority, it is possible that the Khandanoddhâra, if Vâchaspati Misra really wrote it, was written after the Bhâmatî had been finished. It is unfortunate that Prof. Târânâth has not given the authority for his statement; for reasoning in the absence of such authority must be merely hypothetical.
Now if we adopt Prof. Târânâth's statement, the results we arrive at deprive Prof. Cowell's arguments of all weight. The series of authors appears to stand thus:-1st Udayana; 2nd Śri Harsha; 3rd Vâchaspati Miéra. This clearly appears to result from the following words of the author of the Khandana. "Therefore," says he, "in this matter, it is not impossible for us
Kusumanjali, pp 9 & 10.
tVide Introduction, p. 5.
p. 87 of Dr. Hall's catalogue. Dr. Hall's language implies that his list omits nothing that is in the list in the Bhamati.
[OCT. 4, 1872.
verses with only some And he then proceeds as
to adopt your own letters altered." follows:
"Vyâghâto yadi sankâsti, na chechchhankâ tatastarâm.
Vyâghâtâvadhirâsanka tarkasśankâvadhih ku
tah."
Now these verses are distinctly and expressly a parody of the verses in the Kusumânjali,
"Sankâchedanumâstyeva na chechchhankâ
tatastarâm.
Vyaghâtâvadhirâsankâ tarkassankâvadhirma
tah."§
We have thus (1) Udayana's Kusumânjali; (2) Śri Harsha's Khandana which quotes it; and (3) Vâchaspati Misra's Khandanoddhâra, which is an answer to (2).
Now it will be observed that this series reverses the chronological relations of Udayana and Vâchaspati as laid down by Prof. Cowell. And this leads to the further result that Prof. Cowell's terminus a quo is lost, whatever may be said of the terminus ad quem: for if Váchaspati comes after Udayana, we have no link to connect Udayana and Sankara.
If, then, Prof. Cowell's argument must be given up, the question arises-What can we substitute for it? The age of Bâņa's Harsha, as fixed by Dr. Hall, will not help us in this matter; for while Bâna's Harsha is a royal personage, the Harsha of the Khandana is a mere dependant of a king of Kányakubja. And in this case, the supposition that some writer at the king's court gave to his work the king's name is also negatived by the fact that Sri Harsha is stated at the close of the Khandana to be the name of the author himself-who is further described as a "kavi." One hint, however, we get from Dr. Hall's catalogue. At page 26, we find a work noted, which is there said to have been composed in 1252, and which quotes or mentions Udayana. Who this Udayana is, however, does not appear from Dr. Hall's note. A further circumstance, which will throw some light on this matter, and which is less open to question, is to be found in Dr. Hall's preface to the Vasavadattâ. We there learn, that the Naishadhiya is quoted in the Sarasvatikanth.bharana-which work, according to Dr. Hall,
See the Khandana (Calc. edition), p 91. and the Kusumanjali, p. 28. Vasavadatta, Pref. p 17. Khandana, 199.
