9058009382

8 W. R. ANTARKAR

of Ihe Kirfita dynasty on the basis of “ slalistical tabłes of the lite insurance companies” (of the 19lh century), when Arrian & Megaslhenes and even V. Smith teslity to Indians living long lives of 100 and morę yrs. in those ancient times.

b) King Amśuvarman, the lst king of the 6lh Thakuri dynasty has been identified with King Amshu-fo-mo, mentioned by Hieun Tsang whose “visit to Northern India most probably ialls in the year 637 A. D." From this it follows, according to Dr. Biihlcr, that king Amśu. musi have reigned in the first half of the 7lh cent. of our era.

9

Now, an inscription of King Sivadcvavarinan, the 27th king of the 5th SuryavaihśT dynasty bears the datę 119 Harsa Saiiwal. Dr. Biihler identifies this Harsa Sarhvat with the one started in 606 A. D. by king Harsavardhana of Kanoj, the hero of Ban2’s Akhyayiki Harsacarita. This gives 725 A.D. as the datę of King Sivadevavarman.

This means that a king of an earlicr dynasty comes nearly a 100 yrs. after a king of the following dynasty. Sccondly, history knows no era founded by King Harsavardhana of Kanoj and I have asccrtained this from some eminent history scholars. A person, who is olherwise very critical about olhers, is expected to have said at least something about these points.¹⁶

9

A vcry important objcclion to the 6th cent. B.C. theory is that if Sań. is placed so early, the dates of many of his predecessors and successors in time, e.g. Kumania, Mandana / Surę., Buddha Dhannaklrti, DińnSga, Akalańka, Samantabhadra and many others become complctly upset and at least as far as the present siatę of seholarship is concerned, these writers cannot be assigned to any B.C. period, in fact to any period before the 5lh cent. A.D. Sań.’s datę, therefore, depends upon the dates of so many Hindu, Jain and Buddhist writers. Prof. R.M. Umesh has tried to examine and analyse, -aparl from other lopics likc the Mutt-records, datę of Aśoka and Buddha, the Puranas and the Guptas and so on-the relationship between the predecessors and successors of Sań. by having course to their works and has come to the following conclusions.¹⁷

1)    Gauda., the grand preceptor of Sań. certainly came after N5gS. (not earlier than the lst cent. B.C.), Asańga (not later than the 3rd cent. A. D.), Yeśomitra, the commentator of Vasubandhu*s Abhidharma Kośa (about 5th cent. A.D. ) and Śanlarksita (about the middle of the 8th cent. A. D.). Hcnce, Gauda, is definitely not earlier than the 6th cent. A.D. possibly between 525 A.D. and 725 A.D.

9

2)    Kuma. said to have becn a senior contcmporary of Sań. attacks Samanta, (not earlier than the first cent. A.D.), ąuotes from Bhartrhari (not earlicr than 5th cent. A.D.), attacks and is allackcd by Dharma. (and so*contemporaries)