Indian Antiquary Vol 42

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 260

248
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
.
[SEPTEMBER, 1913.
Thus, when, with the fall of the Vikramaditya set up by Dr. Fergusson, it becomes no longer poseible to place in the sixth century, on the same grounds, the writers, whom legends connect with a Vikramaditya, the view which holds that the leaders of the Indian poetic art belonged to ibis period, will be also compelled to support itself by other arguments and to produce a proof for every one of these writers in particular. What has been adduced, in this connection, about Kalidasein whom alone we are interested here-is, in my opinion, not sufficient to make out even the bare probability of such a fixing of the age. The well-known but hardly accredited verse which mentions Kalidasa as one of the nine jewels at the court of the Vikramaditya, and which makes him & contemporary of the astronomer Varábamihira, loses all its value. The Vikramaditya referred to in the verse is, as the Jyotirvidábharaṇa shows, the legendary founder of the era of 56-57 B. C. So long as the history of western Iudia was absolutely unknown, it was at least possible to conjecture that the writers named in the verse would have been contemporaries and lived under a Vikramaditya-whose time was wrongly pat later--and that their actual age ought to have been inferred from the sure date of Varábamihira. But now when we know that in the first half of the sixth century, there never existed a Vikramaditya of Ujjain, it naturally follows that the legend is the more defective. It would be more than venture to hold as historically true what remains of the legend, namely, the simultaneity of the nine writers.
A second argument which is based on Mallipatha's explanation of Meghadata, verse 14, CAD also hold little water, in that it requires us to assume many things, no doubt, possible, but incapable of proof, and its conclusion is opposed by important considerations. One must, to begin with, take it as proved that Mallin atha was right in asserting that in the passage in question, Kalidasa, in the word digndgândin referred to a hated opponent, further that this opponent is identical with the Buddhist teacher Dignaga, so also, that this latter was the pupil of Vasubandhu or Asanga, 95 as the Buddhist tradition goes according to Târânâ tha and Ratnadharmarája. Then comes the last and the most questionable link in the chain, i. e., the assigning of the year 550 or so to the two brothers Vasubaudhu and Asanga, which derives its main support from the untenable theory of the great Vikramaditya of the sixth century. This assumption, as Professor Max Müller himself admits, is contradicted by a Chinese account, according to which, Kumaraji va translated the works of Vasubandhu in the year 404 4. D. The same is further contradicted by the tradition mentioned by Mr. Bunyin Nanjio, that the same Kumarajiva translated the life of Vagubandhu, as well as in my opinion, by the existence of Chinese translations of Vasuband), u's works, in the years 508, 509, 508-11 (Bongin Nanjio Catalogue, Nos. 1168, 1194, 1233).96
A third argument which is based on the assumption that Kálida sa must bave lived after Aryabhata (who wrote about 499 A. D.) just because he abows an acquaintance with the scientific astronomy borrowed from the Greeks, bas fallen down to the ground, owing to the results of the newest researches. Professor Max Müller, in addition to the views of earlier scholars, held that Aryabhata was the father of scientific indian astronomy, and assigned the five Siddhậntas selected by Varahamihira to the sixth century. But this is quite a mistake, according to Dr. Thibant's thorough examination of the question in the introduction to his edition of the Pazcha-siddhantika. Of the five Siddhantas, two, Paitamaha and Vásishtha, bave nothing to do at all with the astronomy borrowed from the Greeks. Of the remaining three, two, Romaka and Paulisa, are more incomplete and older than the one ascribed to Surya, and all the three, in their form, go backwards even before Aryabbata's works. They are also treated by Varahamihira, with greater respect than Aryabhata and other individual astronomers. These and other considerations lead Dr. Thibaut to fix the year 400 A.D. as the terminus ad quem for the Romaka and Paulisa. Thus it is no longer necessary to assign Kalidasa to the sixth century just on the ground that he is acquainted with Greek astronomy. I must still further add that the assertion made by
"I purposely speak of the verse only. For, in my opinion, it is not advisable to refer to the Gay A inscription translated by Sir Ch, Wilkins (As. Res., Vol. 1. p. 284), but now lost, as a proof for the existence of a tradition of the Nine Jewels. Whosoever oompares the translation (Murphy's Travels in Portugal) of the Cintra-inse'iption by the same learned gentleman with the original, will certainly agree with me in that his word is not sufficient to ufford ua the certainty that the Gay A inscription oontained such a striking statement as that of the Nine Jewels
44 India, what can it teach us? p. 800 ff.
" The two Thibetan writers oontradiot eno other on this point. Thran Atha says, History of Buddhism P. 131), that Dignaga had been a pupil of Vaubandhu. The seoond socount belongs to Ratnadbarmardjo. he ofder Chinese writers are not aware of this tradition.
Mr. Beal, according to his note 77 10 his trapelation of the Siynki. Vol. I, p. 105, appears to have doubted the fact that Vaubandbu lived in the sixth century A. D. Compare also Note 80, p. 106, where Mr. Beal sbows that Vasabandha, socording to Hinen Triang, lived in tho middle of' or 'during the period of 350 8. C-650 A. D.
"7 India, what can it teach sa P p. 318 ff.
• recent article on the Romaka Siddhantas, Ante. Vol. XIX, p. 183 if.. Mr. 8. P. Dikabit Koes still in thor and fixes the time of Ptolem 150 A, D. as the terminus ad quem for the old Romaka. Dr. Thibant aleo Mys, I. o. p. LII-III, that the Romaka can be older tban Ptolomäus, although there lies no conclusive ground for tio supposition. Compare, in this connection, Dr. Burgesa Anto., Vol. XIX, p. 267