Indian Antiquary Vol 47

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

Page 24

THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
IJANUARY, 1915
as it comes into conflict with the statements of the Jaina writers, which have been shown to rest upon contemporary Gupta inscriptions. On the same ground we should reject as valueless the view of Albêrûnî, admittedly a later writer than our Jaina authorities, that the Gupta era dated from the extermination of the Guptas. This erroneous opinion of Alberůni, coupled with his conflicting statements as to the difference between Saka and Gupta years being 241, 242 or 243,47 led to a fierce controversy over the epoch of the Gupta era, which has raged now for more than 78 years since 1838, when Mr. James Prinsep discussed the date of the Kahâum pillar inscription of Skandagupta. A great step in advance was made when Dr. Fleet discovered his Mandasor inscriptions. But his method of proring that the Malava era was the same as the Vikrama era of 57 B.C. left a great deal to be desirel. Now that we have placed his hypothesis on a footing of certainty, unstinted praise should be given to Dr. Fleet for his interesting discovery. But that he claimed more for his discovery than was its due has been already shown. Nor should we refuse to pay a well-meritech tribute to Mr. D. R. Bhandarkar for his discovery of an earlier date in the Vikrama era, namely 461, referable to the reign of Chandragupta II. Mention should be made here of the synchronism between Samudragupta and the king Meghavarņa of Ceylon discovered by M. Sylvain Lévi to whom our thanks are due. But this synchronism, valuable as it is, should he utilized not in proving the epoch of the Gupta era, as was suggested by some scholars, but in rectifying Ceylonese chronology, which is full of uncertainty, as various dates are propose for king Meghavarņa. Nor should we omit to express our gratitude to Mr. Hargreaves who has lately discovered the two Gupta inscriptions, one of Kumâragupta II dated Gupta Samvat 154, and the other of Budhagupta dated Gupta Sanivat 157, which have enabled us, with the help of our Jaina authorities, to prove that the Gupta years between 153 and 157 are expired and not current years.
Thus the controversy, which has raged over the epoch of the Gupta era for more than 78 years, is finally set at rest.
Extract from Gunabhadra's Uttara-perâna, Chap. 76.
अथान्वश महारामः श्रेषिकः भाविक दृशं । । धनत्वा गणाधीशं कुड्मलीकृतहस्तकः ।। 387 ।। शेषावसर्पिणीकालस्थिति निरवीषतः।
आगाम्चुरसर्पिणीकालस्थितिमप्बनुयुक्तवान् ।। 388 ।। गणी निजदिशाभीषुपसरैः प्रीषबन्सभाम् । गिरा गंभीरबा व्यक्तमुक्तवानिति सक्रमात् ।। 389 ॥ चतुर्यकालपर्वते स्थिते संवत्सरत्रवे। साटमासे सपने स्वात्सिडः सिद्धार्थनंदनः ।। 39011 दुबमावाः स्थितिवर्षसहसाबेकशितिः। शसवपस्तास्मिहत्कृटेन मता नराः ।। 391 ।। समारलिप्रमाणांगा कमच्छाबा विकपकाः। विकालाहारनिरताः सरतासकमानसाः ।। 392 ॥ परेपि दोषाः प्रायेण तेषां स्युःकालहीपतः। बतोस्वां पापकर्माणो अनिष्यते सहनसः ।। 393 ।। बयोक्तभूभुजाभावाजाते वर्णादिसंबरे।
e Gupta Incriptions, Introd. p. 25; ante, Vol. XV, p. 189.
"सम्बग्दर्शन which purifies the noul pormanently by estirely destroying कर्मन् or action. Cf. . Tattvarttha-Rajavartika II, 1, 2 and 10, Benares Ed. I, p. 69.
.Mahavirai