Date of Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika

Determination of date and authorship of an ancient text remains one of the most challenging problems for an inquiring student of Sanskrit literature. Inasmuch as the authors and poets prefer to remain silent on giving the relevant material, both personal and impersonal, with regard to their works, the problem becomes doubly compounded. Colophons : The author of Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika also follows this time-honoured custom and maintains an intriguing silence about nomenclature, personal, historical or geographical. The reader is dished out only with the frugal material which comes in the shape of the colophons of the text. We gather from the colophons that Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika forms a part of the great Saivatantra "akasabhairavakhye mahasaivatantre samrajyalaksmipIthikayam Beyond this, the colophons do not help us. known as ABh.kUpper limit : A study of the text reveals that during the navaratra (107.29-32) celebrations gun-powder is used as an item of pyrotechnics. In patala (105.20) we also get mention of nalikastra which is identified by Gode to be a gun. 18 18. Cf. B.P. Mazumdar, Mazumdar, 1960, p.59 wherein the learned author says, "The real fire-arms, similar to guns and cannons were nalika ... It Also, see B. William, Encyclopaedia Britannica (Benton) , Vol.10,1964, p.1039 which records the first invention of guns in Europe in 14 century A.D.

31 (vide his article, "Akasabhairavakalpa, an unknown source ... " (Gode, Vol. II, p.132). P.C.Ray in History of Hindu chemistry, vol. I, pp.98-99 is stated to record the date of the first use of cannon and gun-powder in Indian warfare as 1598 A.D. when Baber forced the passage of the Ganges near Kanauj with his artillery. Thus, the upper-limit of Samrajyalakshmipithika cannot be pushed earlier to this date and we tentatively prefer to go by this limit. Lower Limit : In one of the Manuscript (B. 6702) of Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika, preserved at T.M.S.S.M. Library, Tanjore, is inscribed the name of a king, Tulaja by name. Keeping in view the fact the Manuscript 19 thatof Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika are available only at Tanjore, it will not be wrong to identify the Samrajya-laksmi-pithika reference to king Tulaja who 20 ruled Tanjore from 1729 to 1735 A.D. Thus, the lower limit of Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika can not be brought down beyond 1735 A.D. In the following pages we propose to make an attempt to search for the date of Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika within the limit so adduced from 1528 A.D. to 1735 A.D. roughly two centuries. 19. 20. Vide informations we get from NGC, 1966, p.6. There is also another king by the same name, Tulaja-II who ruled Tanjore from 1765-1787 A.D. If we identify this king for our purpose, then the lower-limit does not exceed 1787 A.D. For the geneology of Tulajaraja, see Descriptive Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts, vol. 19, p.10 of T.M.S.S.M. Library, Tanjore.

32 Now, are taken up for discussion, the scanty referenced to Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika that come our way from the works of other writers in the form of external evidences. First, in the list comes Sivatattvaratnakara (1684-1710 A.D.) of Basavabhupala which in (1.1.80), while enumerating various Tantras, mentions one' raivalaksmi prasadaka sarva samrajyatantra'. Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika also at one place mentions samraiva tantra (vinanam) (100.18). Now, depending on this phonetic similarity, if the Sivatattvaratnakara reference is taken to point to the text of Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika, then we can say that the existence of Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika was atleast known to the author of Sivatattvaratnakara and as such, Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika must have been composed before the date of Sivatattvaratnakara (1684-1710 A.D.). But in so doing we face one difficulty namely, the absence of any proof whatsoever, in proving that Sarvasamraivatantra, which is said to appease the goddess of wealth of empire, did not exist as a separate text. Therefore, to say that Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika is meant by the above reference of Sivatattvaratnakara appears to be highly improbable. Moreover, it is customary that when the name of a text is meant to be quoted, the proper name is mostly preserved. Thus when the author of Sivatattvaratnakara has not used Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika by name and has used sarva samraivatantra, it is probable that he must have some other text in view. There is also another reference of later part of 18 th Century A.D. which we may consider here.

33 Bhaskararayamakhin in his commentary on 236 th name of Lalita mentions Laksmipithika as one of the sources of 21 sixtyfour kalas. Elsewhere, we note that the date of the completion of the commentary is mentioned to be Samvat 1785 22 which equals to 1728 A.D. Here the title, though cited partially, may not allude the readers any more and we may atleast existing tentatively form a conclusion that Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika was atleast during the later half of 18 th Century A.D. Now, we propose to examine the conclusions of some modern authors in this direction. S.N.Sen, while dealing with gun-powder and pyrotechnics in History of Science (1971), p.56 mentions Bh.K as a work of C.15 Century A.D. There is no scope to doubt here that by ABH.K the author does not include Samrajya-laksmi-pithika which claims to be a part of the former. Moreso, he does not find it necessary to incorporate the basis of his reckoning. However, this date also approximates our hypothesis of the time of the upper limit, 1.e. 1528 A.D. by about three decades which may be nothing, when compared to the development from the introduction of to gun-powder to our country, ti its pyrotechnic use and its use in weaponry. 21. 22. See A.K.Sastri, Lalitasahasranama (with Bhaskararaya's commentary), (English trans.) Madras, 1976, p.129. See introduction to Varivasyarahasya, Ed. S.Sastri, Adyar, 1948, pp. 23-24.

[[[ p. 35 ]]]34 P.K.Gode whe for the first time has attempted a to fix the date somewhat de tudy of Samrajyalaksmipithika he calls it Akasabhairavakalpa - and assigns sixtyfive years from 1500-1565 A.D. for its composition. It will be seen that Gode has considerably squeezed the gap of the upper and lower limits of the text within a margin of mere sixtyfive years. This he does on the basis of his assumption that the text of Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika embodies the traditions of the kings of Vijayanagara, description of details of rituals, festivals, forts, etc. which we find in Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika only strengthens the assumption of Gode that it must have been writen during the glorious t L The period of kings of Vijayanagara, We shall come to it later. Let us now consider some other analogous matter.