365bet娱乐

[Full title: A note on the 骋补峁単腻箩补濒补 by 顿腻尘辞诲补谤补 惭颈艣谤补 (2) The date of 骋补峁単腻箩补濒补]

To assert the date of 骋补峁単腻箩补濒补 there are two colophons which are found as internal evidences. The first colophon^[1] said that the above 辫谤腻测补艣肠颈迟迟补辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺 was completed in a Friday (产丑峁沢耻), its tithi being 苍补苍诲腻, 辫补办峁�a-艣耻办濒补, month-辫丑腻濒驳耻苍补 and 艣补办补 era 1356 corresponding to 1434 CE.

This statement bears no ambiguity. But there was scope to assert the exact 苍补苍诲腻tithi, which should be pratipada-苍补苍诲腻. This can be justified from the second evidence concerning 惫颈惫腻丑测补蝉迟谤墨-苍颈谤耻辫补峁嘺.^[2] This 辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺 which is next to 辫谤腻测补艣肠颈迟迟补辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺 was completed in the 峁�a峁ａ弓丑墨苍补苍诲腻, equally in the same year (1356 艣补办补). As the pratipada precedes 峁�a峁ａ弓丑墨, so also 辫谤腻测补艣肠颈迟迟补辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺 should precede viv膩hya辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺 and therefore the exact tithi of the preceding 辫谤腻测补艣肠颈迟迟补辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺 must be pratipada苍补苍诲腻 to attain its completion. It means 顿腻尘辞诲补谤补 惭颈艣谤补 required at best five days i.e., pratipada苍补苍诲腻tithi to 峁�a峁ａ弓丑墨苍补苍诲腻tithi to complete the 惫颈惫腻丑测补蝉迟谤墨-苍颈谤耻辫补峁嘺 just after the completion of the 辫谤腻测补艣肠颈迟迟补辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺.

In respect of 骋补峁単腻箩补濒补 II it is strange to note that the same date of completion of the above quoted viv膩hya辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺 is found stated at the colophon of the antye峁ａ弓墨辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺 which is not easily acceptable.^[3]Although it is based on the above internal evidence, it lacks reality suggesting more time to complete 骋补峁単腻箩补濒补 II , after the completion of 骋补峁単腻箩补濒补 I which covers three hundred two pages in its printed version.^[4]

The date of 骋补峁単腻箩补濒补 that has been inserted in the 鲍辫补办谤补尘补峁噄办腻^[5] of the gloss by Ram膩n膩th Vidy膩la峁卥膩ra is relevant only to determine the date of the completion of the 骋补峁単腻箩补濒补 I It therefore stands as a pertinent question to find out the appropriate date of 骋补峁単腻箩补濒补 II Here, Ram膩n膩th Vidy膩la峁卥膩ra however gives a hint referring to a verse that he has added to his gloss^[6]which has not figured in the body of the text of the printed version of the 骋补峁単腻箩补濒补 From the referred hint he derived that the 骋补峁単腻箩补濒补 was completed in 1360 艣补办补 era corresponding to 1438 CE, the month, 辫补办峁�a, tithi and the day of it respectively being 辫丑腻濒驳耻苍补, 艣耻办濒补, 迟谤补测辞诲补艣墨 and Friday. This may be true, but the sources depending upon which he made this statement is subject to revision.^[7] It may be said that the words 艣耻办濒补munau, candra and 迟谤补测辞诲补艣补驳补迟别 of the verse hinted by Ram膩n膩th Vidy膩la峁卥膩ra should be read as 艣耻办濒补munou, cakre and 迟谤补测辞诲补艣补迟别 respectively to determine the completion date of 骋补峁単腻箩补濒补 II The base of this opinion is the colophon found in one Manuscript , of 厂尘峁泃颈蝉腻驳补谤补-蝉补峁僩谤补岣�a preserved at the Kamarupa Sanskrit Sanjivani Sabha^[8] It is observed that the word 峁�a峁ａ弓丑墨 of the present colophon is a correct form of 峁�a峁ａ弓丑墨 that deserves consideration. Accordingly when sixty is added to the one thousand three hundred, the result that yields thereby 1360 艣补办补 era will be acceptable to be the exact date of the 骋补峁単腻箩补濒补 II This date is accepted by Prof. Naliniranjan Sharma^[9] also on the basis of the above colophon of the Manuscript This analysis indicates addition of another four years to the date inserted in the three different colophon^[10][11] of the 骋补峁単腻箩补濒补 II which is 1356 艣补办补 era corresponding to 1434 CE.

It is expected that, the author certainly required that four years as suggested by the above Manuscript , to complete 骋补峁単腻箩补濒补 II in 1360 艣补办补 era. We come across two dynasties before us, viz., the Khen and the Koch who held in great esteem for providing patronage to the 辫补峁囜笉颈迟蝉 in the growth and development of Sanskrit and Assamese literature besides promoting Vedic culture since past. There is no difference of opinion in finding out the date of a scholar and his patron king provided that scholar had a literary product to his credit. In that sense 顿腻尘辞诲补谤补 惭颈艣谤补 was a brilliant scholar, who besides composing his own literary works was able to guide the matters of law to his society. He in his 骋补峁単腻箩补濒补 I and 骋补峁単腻箩补濒补 II^[12] emphatically declared that under the patronage of one 叠丑奴尘颈箩补测补苍峁沺补迟颈 he completed his works including 骋补峁単腻箩补濒补 in 1356 艣补办补 era but spoke nothing more about his lineage or his patron king. Besides 骋补峁単腻箩补濒补, 顿腻尘辞诲补谤补 惭颈艣谤补鈥檚 another work was a commentary named 罢补苍迟谤补迟墨办腻 on 罢补苍迟谤补惫颈肠腻谤补 of 辫谤腻测补艣肠颈迟迟补辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺 authored by Bhavadeva 叠丑补峁�峁�补.^[13] It is also learnt from one reference^[14] of 顿腻尘辞诲补谤补 惭颈艣谤补 that he wrote one Da艣补办补rmad墨pik膩, a small digest on the ten 蝉补峁僺办腻谤补蝉 of the Hindus. He also wrote a commentary on Silhana鈥檚 艢腻苍迟颈艣补迟补办补 where he called himself 腻肠腻谤测补 顿腻尘辞诲补谤补 惭颈艣谤补.^[15]

Prof. Naliniranjan Sharma has asserted this title quoting the pertinent colophon thus:

鈥�iti 腻肠腻谤测补r膩jagurud膩modarami艣ranirmita 艣r墨艣膩nti艣atakatik膩yt膩 辫谤补迟丑补尘补岣� 辫补谤颈肠肠丑别诲补岣�鈥�.

Furthermore, on the basis of the concluding verse of the Manuscript it is stated that the author of 骋补峁単腻箩补濒补 had completed this 峁�墨k腻 in 艣补办补 era 1375 CE corresponding to 1453 CE. He also wrote a small 峁�墨k腻 on 艢a峁卥ar腻肠腻谤测补鈥檚 贬补蝉迟腻尘补濒补办补蝉迟辞迟谤补 known as 贬补蝉迟腻尘补濒补办补辫补帽肠颈办腻.^[16] But unfortunately in any of the above mentioned works cannot determine the actual date and patron king of the author.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

ph膩lgune 艣耻办濒补pak峁�e tu 产丑峁沢耻苍补苍诲腻m峁泃e tithau/
产补产丑奴惫补 辫耻蝉迟补办补峁� sake 峁泃upa帽catricandrake// 骋补峁単腻箩补濒补 I, p.270

[2]:

产丑峁沢耻苍补苍诲腻jute 峁�a峁ａ弓hy膩m峁泃e ph膩lgune k峁泃am/
d膩modarena mi艣rena viv膩hyastri苍颈谤耻辫补峁嘺m/ 谤腻箩测别 mahati su艣r墨ke 艣r墨madbh奴mijaye n峁沺e/
parip奴r峁嘺mida峁� 艣膩ke 峁泃upa帽cat峁沜andrake//
Ibid.,p.280

[3]:

谤腻箩测别 mahati su艣r墨ke 艣r墨madbh奴mijayen峁沺e/
艣膩sati ca sam膩pto'yam 峁泃u v膩峁嘺trayoda艣e/ 骋补峁単腻箩补濒补 II,p.302

[4]:

惭颈艣谤补, 顿腻尘辞诲补谤补, 骋补峁単腻箩补濒补 I, p. 280
惭颈艣谤补, 顿腻尘辞诲补谤补, 骋补峁単腻箩补濒补 II, p.302

[5]:

峁泃vi峁�vagn墨ndu (me) 艣膩ke mi艣ro d膩modarobudha岣�/
vyavasth膩s膩raratn膩ni ga峁単膩jale nyadh膩t 蝉耻诲丑墨岣�// 耻辫补办谤补尘补苍颈办腻, 骋补峁単腻箩补濒补 I,V.2

[6]:

kumbhe 艣耻办濒补munau grantham奴le 峁�a峁ａ弓墨yute 艣ake/
candre 迟谤补测辞诲补艣补驳补迟别 mi艣ro 诲腻尘辞诲补谤补岣� 办峁泃墨// mantavya, 骋补峁単腻箩补濒补 II, p.3

[7]:

Goswami, Dr. B.K. D., Descriptive Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscript, sl.no.389, p.51
Ibid., sl.no. 111, p.13

[8]:

Ibid., sl.no792, p.105

[9]:

Sharma, N.R., The K膩mr奴pa School of 顿丑补谤尘补艣腻蝉迟谤补, p.104-106-109

[10]:

^(a) 惭颈艣谤补, 顿腻尘辞诲补谤补 骋补峁単腻箩补濒补 I, pp. 270,280

[11]:

惭颈艣谤补, 顿腻尘辞诲补谤补 骋补峁単腻箩补濒补 II, p.302

[12]:

谤腻箩测别 尘补丑补迟墨 su艣r墨ke 艣r墨mad bh奴mijaye n峁沺e/
parip奴r峁嘺mida峁� 艣膩ke 峁泃upa帽catricandrake// 骋补峁単腻箩补濒补 I, p.280

[13]:

Goswami, B.K. D., Descriptive Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscript, sl.no-780, p.103

[14]:

madk峁泃a da艣补办补rmadip墨k膩y膩峁� dra峁ａ弓avyam/ 骋补峁単腻箩补濒补 I, P.261

[15]:

ity腻肠腻谤测补r膩jagurud膩modaram墨艣ranirmita 艣r墨艣膩nti艣ataka t墨k膩y膩峁� prathama 辫补谤颈肠肠别丑别诲补岣�// Descriptive Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscript, p.51

[16]:

Ibid., sl.no.111, p.13