________________
124
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
(JULY, 1919
reasoning; (2) that the three Jain authors from whose works he quotes give us conflicting and therefore untrustworthy accounts; and (3) that there are certain other Jain writers who give for Kalkirája a date which is removed by centuries from the one given by Jinaseng, Gurabhadra and Nemichandra.
Before considering the question of the starting point of the Gupta era, Mr. Pathak incidentally tries to justify the identification of the Malava era with the Vikrama era. The identification may or may not be right; but Mr. Pathak's mode of its justification is wrong. He says that according to Jinasena Kalkirâja was born in 394 of Saka era expired. (As I have shown above, Jinasena does not say so; but for the sake of argument I allow the statement.) The year 394 of the Saka ero roughly corresponds to the year 529 of the Vikrama era. The date of the Mandasor inscription of Bandhuvarman is 529 of the Malava era. Hence Mr. Pathak concludes that the Malava era is the same as the Vikrama era of 57 B.C. This is strange reasoning. There is no earthly connection between the birth of Kalkirâja and the inscription of Bandhuvarman. Mere identity of, two dates will not mean that they are to be referred to one and the same era. One illustration will make my point clear. The Indian Mutiny occurred in A.D. 1857, which date corresponds to 1914 of the Vikrama era. The present great European war broke out in A.D. 1914. Now suppose a historian 2000 years hence comes across two statements, one to the effect that the Indian Mutiny broke out in 1914 of the Vikrama era, and the other to the effect that a great European war commenced in A.D. 1914, will he be justified in saying that the Vikrama era is the same as the Christian era ? Similarly in the prosent instance we find Kalkiraja said to have been born in 529 of the Vikrama era and a temple repaired in 529 of the Malava era ; surely this is no ground for saying that the two eras are identical.
A similar line of questionable reasoning is adopted in proving that the Saka year 394 expired was the Gupta year 153.expired. Mr. Pathak found in the Khoh grant of Parivrajaka Maharaja Hastin that the Gupta year 156 expired I was the Maha-Vaisakha year of the Jovian cycle. Calculating backwards we get the Gupta year 153 to be tho Maha-Mâgha year of the same cycle. Now according to Jinasena and Gunabhadra (as he says) Kalkirâja was born in Saka 394 expired ; and sunabhadra further adds that it was the Maha-Mâgha year. Combining these two results Mr. Pathak says that the Saka year 394 corresponds to the Gupta year 153. This is not quite logical. Two years cannot be supposed to be identical merely because they happen to be the Maha-Magha years. The Gupta year 165 was also the Maha-Mâgha year; so also the Gupta year 141. If the grant of Hastin had been dated 12 years later or earlier the same result would have followed. The grant has nothing to do with the birth of Kalkirâja. The grant might well have been made three years after one Mâha-Magha year, while the birth of Kalkirkja might have occurred in quite another Maha-Magha year, removed perhaps by several decades or centuries from the first. When we thus see the unsoundness of the argument, there exists then no room for his conclusion that the Gupta era commenced in Saka 241 expired.
Now let us turn to the Jain authors on whom Mr. Pathak relies for his theory. The authors are three-Jinasena, author of the Hari-vaina, Gunabhadra of the Uttarapurana, and Nemichandra of the Trilokasdrà. Of these Gunabhadra and Nemichandra say
1 Whether the year is to be taken as expired or current is immaterial here. For the present we may Assume with Mr. Pathak that it is expired.
