Indian Antiquary Vol 42

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

Page 58

54
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
FEBRUARY, 1913.
same district. The Tamil inscriptions of the varma of Sankaracharya with the Western MagaChola and Hoysala periods in Kunigal Taluk, dha king of the same name, the late Mr. Telang which invariably give the name as Kupungil, also came to the conclusion that Sankaracharya support the above identification. Consequently
flourished at about A. D. 600.7 With regard to the identification of Kunigal with the Koņikal- the other kings mentioned above, we know of a vishaya of the Hosur grant of Ambera' is no Krishpagupta, the first king of the Gupta dynasty longer tenable. After the overthrow of the of Magadba, who ruled at about A. D. 500, of a Chalukya power, Balavarmå may have become a
Jayasinha of the Chalukya dynasty whose feudatory of the Rashtrakatas and fought on period is also about A. D. 500; and of another their behalf against the Gangas. Several tfragals Jayasinha (Jayasinha 11) among the Eastern newly discovered in Tumkur Taluk refer to the Chalukyas, whose date is about A. D. 700. There wars between the Ganga kings Sripurusba and
is nothing to prevent us from identifying the Sivamara' and the Rashtrakūtas, one of them
kings alluded to in Sankaracharya's commentary giving us the important information that Siva- with those mentioned above. But none of them mara fell fighting in a battle at Kagimogey ar was his contemporary, if the date generally against Vallaba, i.e., the Rashtrakata king assigned to him is to be accepted. In these cir(Govinda III).
cumstances one may well be excused if one holds There can thus be no doubt about the existence
the opinion that the identification in the case of of a prince of the name of Balavarmå at the close
Balavarma is as much open to question as in the of the Sth century. And his period being about
case of the others and that the synchronism the same as that generally assigned to Sankara based on it is purely accidental. It looks as if charya, the attempt on the part of scholars to
one out of several names had been purposely identify him with the one alluded to by the latter seized upon to the exclusion of the others in in his commentary can by no means be pronoun
order to secure support for a favourite theory. ced unreasonable. On reading my Archeological
When epigraphical or other evidence becomes Report for 1910, Mahamahopadhyaya Harapra
available to prove the contemporaneity of the sada Sastri, M.A., in a kind letter dated the 1st kings referred to with SankarAcharya, the arguof May 1911, wrote to me thus:-" The date of
ment from the synchronism of Balavarma will be Sankaracharya has not yet been proved by any pert
by any perfectly legitimnte. Till then the names bave positive fact. In your Report you speak of a
perhaps to be looked upon as connoting imagiBalavarma in about A. D. 812, i.e., about the
nary persons like the words Dévadatta and time when Sankaracharya flourished; and he
Yajñadatta or the letters A, B and C. mentions in his Bhashya IV., 3, 4 of Balavarma
R. NARASIMHACUAR as being near to him. May not this be a fosi
Bangalore, tive proof of Sankaracharya's date?" And in the note under reference Mr. D. R. Bhandarkar bas (I have no doubt that my identification of likewice based his conclusions on the same identi- Sankaracharya's Balavarman is correct. For, fication. It is possible that the identification is as shown by me, his grandson Vimaladitya can correct. There are, however, a few other circum- alone answer to the description of the contem
tances which cannot well be ignored in this porary prince given by Sankaracharya's pupil's connection. Balavarma is not the only prince pupil, Prajāatâtman. This receives additional mentioned by Sankaracharya. He mentions confirmation from the fact that it agrees with several others, e.g., under Sutra IV., 3, 5 Jayasimba the date of the philosopher arrived at by Prof. and Krisbņagupta along with Balavarma ; under Pathak on irrefragible evidence. It is true that Sútra II., 1, 17 Purņavarmi. In case Balavarma Sankaracharya speaks of other kings also, e.g., is taken to be his contemporary, it stands to rea- Jayasinha and Krishuagupta. But their names son that the others also should be treated as can have no weight so long as syuchronisms of Buch. It is not reasonable to single out one of their sons or grandsons with the philosopher's the names to base our arguments on and com- pupils or pupil's pupils are not established.pletely ignore the others. Identifying the Parna. D.R. B]
. ibid. Kunigal 2, 14 and 16. • Mysore Archeological Report for 1910, paras. 46 and 51-54.
6 Epi. Ind., IV.. 337.
Ante, XIII 95.