Indian Antiquary Vol 48

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

Page 178

174
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
(SEPT., 1919
and II, refers itself to the reign of Abokachalla and is likewise on stone, there is to be found the Nagari p throughout. The above considerations are, in my opinion, instructive, and enough to prove the futility of such a procedure as the one followed by Mr. Chanda. It will thus be agreed that there remain no reasonable palæographic grounds for saying that the Bodh-Gayà inscription of the year 51 is later than the Gayê stone inscription of Govindapâla.
Let us now proceed to discuss the possibilities of there being two different eras bearing the name of the same king. The résumé of the views of Mr. Chanda, which has been given above, will show that he has committed himself to one important assumption, viz., that the two eras were never current side by side-one was succeeded by the other. According to his theory, the three dates 51, 74 and 83 of inscriptions I, II and III would correspond to the years A.D. 1251, 1274 and 1283 respectively. Therefore, if the La-san came into vogue after the atita-rajya era had ceased to exist, it must necessarily have been so after A.D. 1283; it cannot be said to have flourished before this date. But is it really a fact that there is no date earlier then A.D. 1283 which is expressed in the Lakehmaņa-samvat? Now, in the colophon of a MS. belonging to the Durbar Library, Nepal, noticed by M. M. Haraprasad Sastri, its date has been expressed as follows: La-8a 91 Chaitra. Vadi Gurau. The date which is herein expressed is the year 91 of La-saṁ corresponding to A.D. 1210. This year, therefore, which is expressed in Ła-sam, precedes all the three dates, viz., 1251, 1274 and 1283. Thus, the theory that the La-se came into vogue after the so-called Mrityu-8asivat had eeased to exist, at once falls to the ground. Again, if we take the two eras as separace we are driven to the conclusion that they were flourishing side by side from at least about A.D. 1210 to 1283. Thus two eras started from different years but going under the name of the same king, were being employed by the people at one and the same perioda view which is prima facie untenable, and as such will, I am afraid, commend itself to very few scholars.
But this is not all. There is also evidence of a definite character which goes straight against the theory that the era of the inscriptions was started from A.D. 1200. Now, the most important data that can finally settle the question at issue are, of course, those that are furnished by astronomical calculation. In inscription II, dated 74, there are fortunately enough the following details of a date:
Thursday, the 12th lithi, Vaisakha vadi. According to the calculation of Kielhorn, who referred the date to the era of A.D. 1119, it corresponded to Thursday, the 19th May, A.D. 1194. The question that now arises therefore, is : whether the above details tally in the case of the year A.D. 1274 which correspords tu the year 74, according to Messrs. Chanda and Vasu, i.e., whether the 12th tithi of Vaisakha vadi falling in the year A.D. 1274, was a Thursday? As a matter of fact, however, it was not so, and according to the calculation of Dewan Bahadur L. D. Swamikarnu Pillai, this detail does not tally with any year between A.D. 1272 and 1277.10 In this period there is no year whose 12th tithi of Vaisakha vadi is a Thursday. It is clear, therefore, that the year 74, and, consequently, the years 51 and 83, cannot be referred, on pure estronomical grounds, to an era having for its initial year A.D. 1200 (or even one or two years earlier).
Let us now consider the exact meaning and force of the expression Lakshmanasenasy = atita-rajye Saill, and see whether it in any way supports the theory of Messrs. Chanda and Vasu. The quertion that arises here is : whether a regnal and a post-regnal year of a king can be expressed in identical language if we want to express them in extenso. The full
Cat. of Palm leaf and Selected priper MSS., pt. I, p. 16, No. 400.
30 As I was not personally acquainted with Dewan Bahadur Pillai, Prof. D. R. Bhanderkar was kind enough to request him to calculate the above thing for me.