________________
ON THE DATE OF LAKSHMANASENA
187
JULY, 1913.3
Mr. Banerji is perfectly right in rejecting the date of the first of the four Bodh-Gayâ inscriptions of Asokachalladova. When Hieuen Tsang visited India, there was a great divergence of opinions about the date of the Mahâparinirvana. The Northern and the Southern Schools did not agree. The mention of the Mahâyâna and the Hevajra leads us to believe that the date might have been in accordance with the reckoning of the Northern School; but the mention of the "Singhal-sthaviras" in the inscription IV raises doubts, and the definiteness which Prof. Bhattasali asserts is rendered cloudy. No chronologist in India, or anywhere else, during "the interval of the seven centuries," took up the question and tried to harmonise the widely divergent opinions of the north and the south and to fix even a conventional date for the starting point of the Nirvana ers. Even now the same difference in opinions exists, and we fail to see any reason in the dogmatic assertion of the learned Professor. A calculation based upon so unsure a ground cannot stand the test of critical study. The assurance of the Buddhist friends of Prof. Bhattasali cannot obviate the difficulties that beset its acceptance as a datum for logical argument. He might convince himself of the existing difference in opinions by consulting Cunningham's Book of Indian Eras.
.
The next question that has been raised by Prof. Bhattaśâli centres round the expression atttarajya. The Sanskrit expression, as it is, directs our attention to the rajya itself, if not to its initial year. It is not equivalent to rajye atîte sati, which would refer to the end of a regnal period. The pûrvanipáta of atita is what we think renders the explanation of Prof. Kielhorn more acceptable than the one proposed by Prof. Bhattasálf, and we understand it to mean that "although the years were still counted from the commencement of the reign of Lakshmanasena, that reign itself was a thing of the past."5 Prof. Kielhorn tried to harmonise the evidences of the Muhammadan historians and those yielded by epigraphical studies and held that the so-called conquest of Bengal took place in the year 80 of Lakshmanasena era, although the reign itself was a thing of the past.
The question of a distinct era counted from the end of Lakshmanasena's reign is altogether a new one. If the king had been a very popular one, the end of his reign with the loss of his kingdom brought about by a foreign invasion, would be regarded rather as a calamity and would not be The word that occurs in the old document commemorated by the institution of a new era. referred to by Prof. Bhattaśâll has not been correctly quoted. The word is pargandit and not parganditt. We are at a loss to understand how he could misquote it. The reference is to p. 45 (and not p. 511) of Babu Jogindra Nath Gupta's History of Vikrampur (in Bengali). Before making any remark, we would draw the attention of the learned Professor to the language of the document. It is full of outlandish words and expressions, and was made out at the time when the languages of the courts of law in Bengal were Persian and Arabic. The word parganati has perhaps no relationship with atita. We should not like to risk any suggestion or improvise any correction as the learned Professor has done.
In the Madhâinagar copper plate grant, it has been said that Lakshmanasena joined in an expedition against the Kalingas when he was still a Kumara (Kuumára keli). This must have been when he was at least 20 years of age. Then, following up the datum of the grant, he must have been at least 22 years of age when he was called to the throne. If we accept the conclusions of Prof. Bhattaśâll, king Lakshmanasena should have attained 22+80= 102 years when Muhammad the son of Bakhtyâr led his Turks into Nadiya. Prof. Kielhorn, as it appears from his Synchronistic List of Northern India, had afterwards abandoned his theory of the conquest of Bengal, an interpretation which he proposed by bringing together the evidences of the Muhammadan historians and those obtained by the study of inscriptions of the period.
Mr. D. R. Bhandarkar has pointed out that Mr. Nagendra Nath Vasu has already set forth much of the matter which Prof. Bhaṭṭasûlf dilates upon in his paper; and, by the way, it might be said that the conclusions of Mr. Vasu on the date of composition of Danas@gara do not seem to us very Jour. As. Soc. Beng. for 1910. J. A., VIII.
Ante, XIX, p. 7. and p. 2, note 3.
