Date of Kṣīrasvāmin

As in the case of native place, even with regard to Kṣīrasvāmin's date scholars have proposed their findings based on some evidences. These are surveyed for arriving at an approximate date of the author:

According to Prof. Mm. Yudhiṣṭhira Mīmāṃsak:

(a) The following points are presented by Prof. Mm. Yudhiṣṭhira Mīmāṃsak in arriving at the date of Kṣīrasvāmin–

(i) The mention of a grammarian Kṣīrasvāmin in Rājataraṅgiṇī of Kalhaṇa who was invited specially by King Jayāpīḍa to revive the study of Mahābhāṣya which had decayed (IV. 488-89):

deśāntarādāgamayyātha vyācakṣāṇān kṣmāpatiḥ |
prāvartayad vicchinnaṃ mahābhāṣyaṃ svamaṇḍale ||
kṣīrābhidhānācchabdavidyopādhyāyāt sambhṛtaśrutaḥ |
budhaiḥ saha yayau vṛddhiṃ sa jayāpīḍapaṇḍitaḥ ||

The reign of Jayāpīḍa is fixed between 751-782 A.D.

Prof. Yudhiṣṭhira Mīmāṃsak considers Kṣīrasvāmin the author of Amarakośodghāṭana, as different from the one referred to by Kalhaṇa.

(ii) It is evident in both the works of Kṣīrasvāmin namely Kṣīrataraṅgiṇī and Amarakośodghāṭana, that he has expressly quoted from works of Bhoja. Bhoja is assigned to 1018-1053 A.D.

(iii) Vardhamāna in his Gaṇaratnamahodadhi (1110 A.D.) cites Kṣīrasvāmin in two instances:–

(a) IV. 303; p. 183–
jyotīṃṣi grahanakṣatrādīni vetti jyotiṣika iti vāmanakṣīrasvāminau |

Avariant reading of the same reads—

jyotīṃṣi grahādīnadhikṛtya kṛto grantho jyautiṣaḥ jyautiṣaṃ veda jyautiṣakaḥ |

This variant reading is found to tally with the reading in Amarakośodghāṭana (II. 8. 14; p. 179);

(b) VII. 430; p. 238–
kṣīrasvāminā māṣa māriṣa ityapi yathā parṣat pariṣaditi ṭīkāyāṃ vivṛtam |

Avariant reading of the same reads–

marṣaṇāt sahanāt mariṣaḥ | mārṣo'pi | yathā pariṣat |

Even in this case the variant reading agrees with the reading in Amarakośodghāṭana (I. 6. 14; p. 51).

(iv) Hemacandra (1088-1172 A.D.) in his autocommentary on Haimābhidāna cites Kṣīrasvāmin by name in the following instances–

(a) III. 541, p. 350—
kṣīrasvāmī tu - kāṣṭhamupalakṣaṇam kāṣṭhāśmādimayī jaladhāriṇī droṇī iti vyācakhyau |

This agrees with the reading in Amarakośodghāṭana (I. 9. 11; p. 63); (b) IV. 211, p. 461–

hitajalāpabhraṃśa hijjalaḥ iti kṣīrasvāmī |

This agrees with the reading in Amarakośodghāṭana (II. 4. 61; p. 96). These citations prove that Kṣīrasvāmin preceeded Hemacandra.

(v) The colophon at the end of Kṣīrataraṅgiṇī reads–

kaśmīrabhuvamaṇḍalaṃ jayasiṃhanāmni viśvambharāparivṛḍhe dṛḍhadīrghadorṣṇi |
śāsatyamātyasūnurimāṃ lilekha bhaktyā svayaṃ draviṇavānapi dhātupāṭham ||

It is taken to mean that the son of a minister of Jayasiṃha had transcribed the work of Kṣīrasvāmin The date of the above mentioned Jayasiṃha is 1128-1138 A.D.

(vi) Maitreyarakṣita (1083-1108 A.D.) in his Dhātupradīpa cites the view of Kṣīrasvāmin through words like kecit, eke, apare, etc. , in seven instances which prove Kṣīrasvāmin's precedence to Maitreyarakṣita.

(vii) Uvaṭa in his commentary on Yajurveda mentions that he wrote the work during the reign of Bhoja–

ṛṣyādīṃśca namaskṛtya āvanyāmuvvaṭo vasan |
mantrāṇāṃ kṛtavān bhāṣyaṃ mahīṃ bhoje praśāsati |

Uvaṭa also cites (when commenting on yaj 25/8) Kṣīrasvāmin's statement on Amarakośa (II. 6. 5; p. 135)–

hṛdayasya dakṣiṇe yakṛt kloma vāme plīhā pupphusaśceti vaidyaḥ iti kṣīrasvāmī |

As mentioned earlier, Kṣīrasvāmin cites Bhoja in both his works; he, in turn, is cited by Uvaṭa.

From all these evidences Prof. Yudhiṣṭhira Mīmāṃsak comes to the conclusion that Kṣīrasvāmin should have lived before 1053 A.D. the extreme limit of Bhoja's date.

According to Prof. C. Vogel:

(b) Prof. C. Vogel in Indian Lexicography has deduced the date of Kṣīrasvāmin to be about early 12th C. A.D. He suggests this date since Kṣīrasvāmin cites Bhoja and is cited by Vardhamāna in his Gaṇaratnamahodadhi. Vogel agrees with Bhānuji Dīkṣita Leibech who interprets the colophon at the end of Kṣīrataraṅgiṇī mentioned above, to have been copied by Kṣīrasvāmin himself during the reign of King Jayasiṃha of Kashmir (1128-49 A.D.) under whom Kṣīrasvāmin's father was a minister. Further, Vogel differs from Yudhiṣṭhira Mīmāṃsak who has also mentioned that Kṣīrasvāmin is anonymously referred to by Maitreyarakṣita in his Dhātupradīpa whose date according to Mīmāṃsak is about 1108 A.D.

According to Prof. Borooah

(c) Prof. Borooah opines that the date of Kṣīrasvāmin can easily be arrived at as Kṣīrasvāmin cites Bhoja and is himself quoted by Vardhamāna (Gaṇaratnamahodadhi dated 1140 C. A.D). Also he opines that Hemacandra, early 13th C. A.D. is indebted to Kṣīrasvāmin as he quotes the latter on some occasions; thus Kṣīrasvāmin must be earlier to Hemacandra and should have flourished before the 12th C. A.D.

According to Dr. Mahesh Raj Pant

(d) Dr. Mahesh Raj Pant asserts that Kṣīrasvāmin was a contemporary of Bhoja, based on the following internal and external evidences:

(i) Uvaṭa's citation of Kṣīrasvāmin in his commentary on Vājasaneyī saṃhitā and his mention that he composed his works during the reign of Bhoja implies that Uvaṭa was a contemporary of Bhoja. This Bhoja, Dr. Pant emphasises was the ruler of Paramāra dynasty of Mālava, who reigned from 1000-1055 A.D. Kṣīrasvāmin citing Bhoja in both his works Amarakośodghāṭana and Kṣīrataraṅgiṇī and Uvaṭa citing Kṣīrasvāmin confirm the fact that Kṣīrasvāmin was a contemporary of Bhoja.

(ii) Dr. Pant also mentions that the interpretation of the colophon made by Vogel and Liebich is to be examined. Dr. Pant clarifies that the use of verb ‘likh’ clearly suggests that the work was copied by the scribe with devotion; for Dr.Pant remarks that if it were the words of the author himself then the verbs employed would be ‘kṛ’ or ‘rac’. Considering all the above facts, the main features that come to the fore are—the extensive and reverential references to Bhoja, familiarity with central India, Kṣīrasvāmin citing gauḍa (Jātarūpa) and Kṣīrasvāmin being cited by Uvaṭa; from all these, the conclusion arrived at is that Kṣīrasvāmin was a contemporary of Bhoja. Thus, Kṣīrasvāmin belongs to early half of 11th C.A.D.