by Shila Chakraborty | 2018 | 112,267 words
This page relates ‘Date of the poet Magha’ of the study on the Shishupala-vadha (in English) in the light of Manusamhita (law and religious duties) and Arthashastra (science of politics and warfare). The Shishupalavadha is an epic poem (Mahakavya) written by Magha in the 7th century AD. It consists of 1800 Sanskrit verses spread over twenty chapters and narrates the details of the king of the Chedis.
In the epic world of Sanskrit language Poet Māgha is one of the glittering stars. The Indian poets were not habituated to present their self identity as the famous personalities were not use to praise themselves consciously.
“notasāhante mahātmāno hyātmānamupastotum”.
But poet Māgha was not faithfut about this. He realised that after his death no one will review his identity. So he has written his identity in the last five verses of the twentieth canto of the epic.
“sarvāradhikārī sukṛtādhikāraḥ śrīdharmanābhasya vabhūva rājñaḥ |
asakkadṛṣṭivirajāḥ sadaiva devo'paraḥ suprabhadevanāmā || 20.80
kāle mitaṃ tathyamudarkapathyaṃ tathāgatasyeva janaḥ sacetāḥ |
vinā'nurodhāt svahitecchayaiva mahīpatiryasya vacaścakāra || 20.81
tasyābhavaddattakaityudāttaḥ kṣamī mṛdurdharmmaparastanujaḥ |
yaṃ vīkṣya vaiyāsamajātaśatrorvaco guṇagrāhijanaiḥ pratīye || 20.82
sarveṇa sarvāśraya ityanindyamānandabhājā janitaṃ janena |
yaśca dvitīyaṃ svayamadvitīyo mukhyaḥ satāṃ goṇamavāpa nām || 20.83
śrīśavdaramyakṛtasargasamāptilakṣma lakṣmīpateścaritakīrtanamātracārukṣamāghaḥ |
tasyātmajaḥ sukavikīrtidurāśayādaḥ kāvyaṃ vyādhatta śiśupālavadhābhidhānam || 20.84
iti śrīśiśupālavadhe mahākāvye śrīdattakasūnu kaviśrīmāgha—
viracite śiśupālavadho nāma viṃśaḥ sargaḥ samāptaḥ ||” 20.85
It is found that the five verses of Māgha’s identity is written separately instead of inclusion in the twentieth canto of the Śiśupālavadha. Published by Nirnayasāgara press.
Inscription and different books inform us about the birth place of the poet. We come to know that Māgha was born in “Gurgara” province of Dakṣiṇāpatha. K. M. Munshi said about ‘Gujarata’ province in his book “Gujarat again is not the same thing as Gurjaradesa or Gurjara. The word Gurjara appears in history as applicable to a region in the middle of the sixth century A.C. Its capital was Bhillamala... the land was styled “Gurjara,” pure and simple …. The southern part of the old ‘Gurjara’ is now included in modern Gujarat as its northmost part and lies between sirohi and the sarasvati….641 A.C. When the Chinese traveller Yuan Chawang visited these regions”
Poet Māgha’s grandfather Suprabhadeva is protected by the king Varmalāta. An inscription of the king Varmalāṭa is found in the Vasantagara city of Śrīrohira. This king ruled in the city normal Srimāla in 625 A.D. In the manuscript of the Śiśupālavadha the name of varmalāta is presented with various names, as for Dharmanātha, Dharmanābha, Dharmalābha, Carmalāta, Dharmatāta, Dharmadeva, Varmalākhya Varmalāṭa etc. But “Prabhachandra mentions the name as varmalaṭa”.
There are various names of Varmalāṭa is also found in vasantagad’s inscription Professor Kielhorn said from this source that the name varmalāta is appropriate. “Professor keilhorn has pointed out that it was now plain from the inscription, that the last mentioned is the correct from of the name”.
K.M. Munshi also said in his book—
In ancient time in Gujarat there was a particular region named Lāṭa. We come to known about this from prathama (first) kumar Gupta and Māndāsora inscription. So the title Laṭa indicates the residents of Gujarata.
Bhinnamāla, the capital of Gujarat is also used in various names. K.M. Munshi says in his book—“Bhillamala, Bhinnamala or srimala about 50 miles west of Mt. Abu, was the capital of Gurjaradesa”.
The present name of Bhinnamāla is Bhinmāla which is situated in the border of Gujaratamarabara in Gujarat. Many thinks that port Māgha and his family lived in Bhinnamāla.
Winternitz said—“His homeland was Srimala in Gujrata”
Suprabhadeva was Māgha’s grand father. We come to know this from his own composition. Suprabhadeve was free from vice and was having idol quality. He was the chief minister of the king named Śrīdharmanābha. He (Śrīdharmanābha) took advice and lesson from Suprabhadeve for his own welfare. The son of Suprabhadeve was Dattaka. Dattaka was faithful to connoisseurs. For his uniquenss he was famous by the name Advitīya Dattaka. The connoisseurs honoured him by the name ‘sarvāśraya’. Peterson mentioned him in his ‘Subhāṣitāvalī by the name ‘Bhaṭṭaka’ or ‘Sarvāśraya’. Māgha was the son of Dattaka. He composed the epic the Śiśupālavadha with the word ‘Śrī’.
In the context of the edition of the Śiśupālavadha D urgāprasāda said in the preface that—
“suratanagarāt śeṭha bhagavānadāsa kevaladāsajī nāmtā mantritreṇa prahite 1827 mite vikramāvde likhite śiśupālavadhapustakesamāptau ‘iti śrībhinnamālavavāstavyadattaka—sūnormahāvaiyākaraṇasya māghasya kṛtau śiśupālavadhe” ityadasti |”
(As it is seen in the Śiśupālavadha kāvyasamīkṣ ā of Bishnupada Datta, p.13-14).
The birth place of Māgha was Gujrat. This may be surely known from the description of Raivataka mountion in the fifth canto.
“gurjaradeśaścāsyabhūmirāsīdityatra tatakṛtaṃgurjaraprāntāntikastha raivatakaparvatavarṇanameva pramaṇakoṭo nikṣeptavyam |”
According to the Prabhāvaka carita Māgha was in Gujrata.
(As it is seen in the Śiśupālavadha kāvyasamīkṣ ā of Bishnupada Datta, p.14).
About the real and artificial sceneries of Dakṣhiṇāpatha was described beautifully by Māgha in his epic the Śiśupālavadha. The description of Dvārakānagarī and the nearest sea is expressed in such a way as if he himself had feelt the scenery.
Jacobi said that Māgha was the resident of Gujrata. Because the description of mountains and sea composed by Māgha is found here (Gujrata).—
“I am further inclined to give credence to the tradition that Magha was a native of Gujarata, for as such he would be familiar with the western ocean and with mountain Girnar, which are described in the third and fourth cantos of the Sisupalavadha”.
So, it can be said without any doubt that Māgha took birth in Gujrata only.
Herman Jacobi said about Māgha—
“Whatever may have been the original etymology of Bharavi, that word naturally suggests some such meaning as, the sun (ravi) of brilliancy (bhas). And Magha, which word does not occur again as a proper name and may therefore be a nom de plume, looks as if chosen by the rival of Bharavi in order to proclaim his superiority to him. For Magha, the month of January, certainly does deprive the sun of his rays:
Cf. of the following couplet.
“māghena vidhtitotsāhā notsahante padakrame |
smaranto bhāravereva kavayaḥ kapayo yathā |”
One of the commentators Vallabhadeva commented Māgha as Ghantāmāgha in his commentary named Sandhehaviṣauṣadhi of the Śiśupālavadha—
“udayāstācalagāminoḥ sūryācandramasormadhyagate raivatakaparvate vilamvamāna ghaṇṭayugalā'laṃkṛtagajendrasādṛśyaṃ pratipādayataḥ—
udayati vitatorddharaśmirajjārahimarucau himadhāmti yāti cāstam |
vahati girirayaṃ vilamvighaṇṭadvayaparivārita vāraṇendra līlām || (Śiśupālavadha, 4.20)
etatpādyasyavyākhyāvasare vallabhadevena ‘anenauva ślokena kavinā ghaṇṭamāgha iti lavdham’ ityullikhitam | ataśca ‘ghaṇṭamāgha’ ityupādhirmāghasyāsīditi pratīyate |”
So, Māgha and Ghantāmāgha is same person. Many says Māgha was śrīmālī Brāhmaṇ a. Again, many of them says that he was not born in Brāhmin family. In the commentary named Sudhāsāgara of the Kāvyaprakāśa, commentator Bhīmasen commented that Māgha was vaiśya by cast.
“māghakāribhimāghākhyavaiśyādvahutaraṃ ghanamāptimityadyuhyam |”
tathā śuśaṅkara śreṣṭhī viśvaviśvapriyaṃkaraḥ |
(As it is seen in the Śiśupālavadha kāvyasamīkṣ ā of Bishnupada Datta, p.16).
In ancient time majority of poets and ministers of royal court were from Brāhmin (Brāhmaṇ a) family. So Māgha may be considered as a Brāhamin. (Brāhmaṇa).
A Brahmin named suprabhadeva is the minister (of all subjects) of king Dharmanabha. He has authority like a king.
(Śiśupālavadha. 2 0.80).
The poets who were the pride of India, their personal details (birth place, time, etc.) were turbidness. Māgha was also not exception about this. The renowned commentator Mallinātha commented in his Sarvaṃkaṣā commentary in verse number twenty nine of thirteenth canto, that the meaning of ‘rājayakṣmā’ is Rājñaścandrasyayakṣmā.
If it is proved then there can be a minimum surety about Māgha’s period because, Haricandra was the first king of the Gurjara state—
“Between 500 and 550 A.C. the first king of Gurjaradesa emerges out of obscurity, Harichandra by name, otherwise called Rohilladhi, a Brahmana versed in the Vedas and the sastras, a preceptor like prajapati”.
While giving simile Māgha mentioned the name of Harichandra. The next generation of Harichandra ruled the capital of Gujrata, named ‘Bhinnamala’ or ‘śrīmāla’.
Bhoja was one of the next generation.
“Harichandra’s grandson, Nagabhatta changed his capital to Medantankapura modern Medata. This fact is supported by the tradition that Srimala was rebuilt in 644 A.C. The transfer of the capital from Bhillamala to medate must have been due to the invasion of pulakesi II, the Calukya emperor. But Nagabhatta soon threw off the Calukya overlordship. When in C. 641 A.C, Yuan Chwang visited Bhillamala, the capital of Gurjaradesa, the country was 833 miles in circuit and its King was a young Ksatriya. ‘The king’, says the Chinese pilgrim, is the Kstriya caste. He is just twenty years old. He is distinguished for wisdom, and is courageous. He is deep believer in the law of Buddha and highly honours men of distinguished ability. This description applies to Tata, the great grandson of Harichnandra, who ‘believing that life was transient left the kingdom to his brother Bhoja and giving himself upto religious life went and lived in holy mandor.”
We get the hint from the above part about the advice speech given by Buddha in eighty first verse of twentieth canto of the Śiśupālavadha.
Cornel Tod said in his book about three Bhoja and agreed Bhoja as parton of Māgha whose time was 665 A.D.
Because king Bhoja was one among the admirers of Māgha:
“Col. Tod in his Rajasthan, stated on the strength of a jaina chronogrammatic catalogue (obtained from the temple of Nadole), that there were three Bhojas, all belonging to the paramara race of Malava, reigning respectively in A. D. 575, 665 end 1042. The last Bhojadeva is very well known and col. Tod corroborated the existence of the second Bhojadeva of A.D. 665 by the Mansarowar inscription (found near chitor) of the paramara king Mana son of Bhoja of Malava dated 770 V.S (A.D. 714) (vide Rajasthan, Vol. 1, p. 92 note and pp. 799-801: ins no. III). This inscription, to which col. Tod justly attached so much importance, has its seems been entirely missed by all later scholars and does not find place in Kielhorn’s list. It is not known if the inscription can now be traced after such a length of time But relying on col. Tod’s account of it we can well belived in the existence of a Bhojadeva, Paramara of Malava, reigning round about chitor in A.D. 665 and his patronage of Magha can no longer be a myth in point of chronology.
Beside this a verse is found in the book named the Saduktikarṇāmṛta which is edited by Māgha and Bhoja—
“Moreover the following verse is quoted in the Saduktikarṇāmṛta under the joint authoriship of Bhojadeva and Magha”.
revatīvadanocchiṣṭa paripūtapuṭe dṛśau |
vahan halīmadakṣī vaḥ pānagoṣṭya punātu vaḥ ||
“It is therefore not unlikely that the association of Magha with Bhojadeva has some truth behind it, and now that the date of Magha has been fairly settled.”
“676-77 A.D. The Gurjara Pratihara king Bhojadeva, Son of Ramabhadra from Appadevi, possibly the greatest Emperor of Northern India in the early mediaeval period, is known to history by several names-prabhasa, Srimad Adivaraha, parameswara and Mihira. The two birudas-Adivaraha and Mihira, if interpreted literally, might signify that he was a devotee of visnu and sun unlike his father Ramabhadra ………..”
There is no doubt that Māgha composed his epic the Śiśupālavadha following Bhāravi’s Kirātārjunīyam, because Māghas quoted many verses and words as it is from the Kirātārjunīyam. The period of Māgha was after Bhāravi.
Following verse proves that.—
“āsīddhi bhāraveḥ paravartī cāsau māghaḥ ityatra tu
‘bhāratī bhāraverbhāti yāvanmāghasya nodayaḥ
udite naiṣadhe kāvye kva māghaḥ kva ca bhāraviḥ ||’
ityadyubhdaṭa ślokaeva prāmāpyaṃ pratipādayati ||”
There are various opinion about Māgha’s time given by different scholars of east and west. In the Bhojapravandha of poet Ballala in sixteenth century there was a pathetic story of Māgha. According this story king Bhoja of Dhārā, existed in eleventh century. Māgha was contemporary of this king. Poet Māgha died due tro his poverty.
This rumous was prevalent among Jainas. The rumour is—
“The Jainas narrate various, of sourse, incredible, legends which explain how Srimala came to be called Bhinnamala. Merutunga says that king Bhoja invented the later name,because the people of Srimala let the poet Māgha die of starvation. According to another authority the town had a different name in each Yuga”.
From this information it is known that Māgha died due to his poverty.
But winternitz said—
“According to the statements of the poet himself an anecdote recorded by the jains he was a son of wealthy man and lived independently of his own.”
The residents of Bhilgrama was called Bhilavāsi “Bhinmal (Bhillamal) or plateau of the Bhils was the original capital of the Gurjara pratiharas who transferred their headquarters to kanauja (early part of the ninth century).”
G. Bular discovered a new information about Bhinamala city from the Gujrat inscription. According to his opinion—
From this it is proved that Māgha and his family was one among the Srimali Brahmanas. So, Māgha is not other than Brahmin caste. So, there is no doubt that the name of Bhinamala city or Bhillamala city keeps on changing from time to time. Because in India such situation is found many times. “It is in India very common for ancient towns to have two or even more names. Thus kanauja was called kanyakubja, Gadhipura and Mohodaya.”
The word “Balligrame” is used in Mahīsura and kurunga inscription. The excellence of Māgha is also described here. It seemed to Bishnupad Datta that Balligrame is the another name of Bhilgrama or Bhinamala.
Here it is noticeable that the use of 22 sargas is printing mistake. Obviously it is not weber’s mistake.
Again in 10th century Siddharṣi the writer of the book named Upamita Bhāvaprapañcakathā was Māghas grandfather subhankar’s son. But this prevalent stories are not the proper source to one’s period.
In 625 A.D an inscription of Barmalāṭa was discovered. In the third verse of that inscription the name of Barmalāṭa is found.
“Verse three speaks of king named varmalata, on whom the next verse bestows nothing but conventional praise comprising him to a sorcerer, as pointed out by Prof. Kielhorn.”
Basing on Barmalāṭa’s inscription many researcher guessed that Māghas period was 650-700 A.D. “An inscription from vasantagadh dated 682 v.s. (A.D. 625) has brought to light the name of a king coinciding with one of the variants varmalata and most of our scholar have proposed a happy identity of the two kings, giving A.D. 650-700 as a fairly approximate date for Magha”.
Basing on the above inscription there were many doubts about the period of Māgha. Here in the description found about Māgha there is a doubt about the name of the king at that time. That is not cleared. Beside this many scholars gave their own opinion about the time of Māgha.
German scholar Jacobi said that Māgha’s time was not after seventh century … “we therefore can not place Magha later than about the middle of the sixth century.”…
Duff said that Magha’s period was 860 B.C.
“He (vamana) must have flourished before Anandavardhana (A.D. 850) who according to Abhinavagupta (A.D. 935-1015) composed a verse about him quotes in his kavyalankarsutravrtti from Magha’s Sisupalavadha. This if the theory be right which refers Magha to about 860 on the strength of his connection with siddha A.D. 906 would necessiate an adjustment of vamana’s date or of that of Anandavardhana”.
And the opinion of Macdonel was that Māgha was in ninth century—
German scholar John klatt said that Māgha’s time was at the beginning of tenth century.
Basing on Siddha’s upamita bhāvaprapañcakathā, it is said that Māgha was in 906 A.D.. “From this we may venture to infer that sidha had already made the Journey and was an old man, when he composed Upamita, in A.D. 906, which Magha, on the contrary, may have written his poem in his youth”.
Weber said in his book named Indian Literature that Māgha was before Halāyudha whose time was tenth century.
Rameshchandra Datta said about Māgha that Māgha composed his epic imitating Bhāravi and to withered his name Māgha used his own name.
“And the name Māgha (a winter month) is probably assumed by the author to indicate that he takes awao the glory of Bharavi (which means the sun.”)
Dr. Parasnath Dvivedi quoted the opinion of Dr. Manamohanalal in the context of Māgha’s period. Dr. Manamohanlal said that Māgha took birth in the Bengali month of Māgha with Maghā star in a full moon day. So, it is imagined that his name was Māgha. Another opinion was that Māgha was turned out by (gha) Lakṣmī, (mā) and so his name was Māgha. But there was no strong proof about this.—māaghaḥ asti yasmin saḥ—which is faultless that is Māgha. The epic Śiśupālavadha is about the culture of kṛṣṇa. So it is Māgha. (As it is seen in the Śiśupālavadha kāyasamīkṣ a of Bishnupada Datta, p. 28).
According to the Bhojaprabhandha poet Rames chandra Datta said about Māgha that Māgha was contemporary with king Bhoja:
“So also in the poems of Atsava, Bharavi Bhavabhuti, Bhartrihari, Bhatrimentha Kantha, Gunadhya, vyasa, Bhasa, vhoja, Kalidasa, Bana, Mayura, Narayana, Kumara, Magha, Rajasekhara and other great poets, When occasion serves, in honour done to this religion”.
(As it is seen in the Śiśupālavadha kāvyasamīkṣ a of Bishnupada Datta, p.28-29).
From this it is proved that Māgha was after Kumardasa. Rajashekhara indicated Māgha’s name in his kāvyamīmāṃsā which was written approximately around ninth to tenth century. We get the indication of Māgha in the book of Nṛpatuṅ ga named Kavirājamarga. Nṛpatuṅga or Amoghavarsa (first) was the king of Rāṣtrakūṭa. He ruled in 814 A.D. He composed the book named kavirājamārga within 815 to 877 A.D.
K.B. Pathak said in his book that Māgha was parallel to Kalidasa.
“It is but reasonable to conclude that at least half a century must have elapsed before Magha could such a fame as to be ranked with Kalidasa by a southern king”.
So, according to this proof it is accepted that Māgha’s period was eighth century.
“kumudavadanamapaśri śrīmadambhogaṣaṇḍaṃ tyajatimudamulūkaḥ prītimāṃścakravākaḥ |
udayamahimaraśmiryāti śītāṃśurastaṃ hatavidhilasitānāṃ hī vicitrovipākaḥ” ||42
Beside this sixth verse of ninth canto is seen here.At the end of ninth century Avantībarmā the king of Kashmira existed (855-884 BC). The royal court was enlighted by the scholars like Ānandavardhana.
We come to know about this from the Rājataraṅginī of kalhan Ānandavardhana quoted fifty third verse of third canto from the Śiśupālavadha in his Dhvānyaloka and twenty sixth verse of fifth canto.
The verses are—
Bāmana was one of the minister of Jayapīḍa of Kāśmira.
“manorathaḥ śaṅkhadattaścakaiḥ sandhimāṃstathā |
vabhuvuḥ kavayastasya vāmanādyāśca mantriṇaḥ ||” (Rājataraṅginī. 4/47)
There is verse is seen in the tenth verse of 3rd chapter of the fourth adhikarana in the Kāvyālaṃ kārarsūtravṛtti.
And another is—
This verse is seen in the Kāvyālaṃ kārarsūtravṛtti the ninth sūtra of second chapter.
between the two vāmanas. D.R. Bhandarkar indicated Māgha’s period is eight century—
“Māgha therefore has to be assigned to be later part of the 8th century”.
Professor K,B, Pathak also agreed that Māghas period is eighth century. The word nyāsa is used by Māgha. He is considered after the creator of nyāsa.
“We can safely conclude that the author of Sisupalavadha flourished in the later part of the eighth century”.
According to the Vasantagarh inscription and Ānandavardhana Anantarāmaśāstrī judged and said in the introduction of an edition of the Śiśupālavadha that—
“ataḥ saptadaśakasyānte aṣṭamaśātakasyārambhe vā māghakavirāsīditi niḥśaṅkaṃ śakyate vaktum |’50
P.V. Kana said that:
“Magha can not be later than A.D. 750 as he is quoted by vamana in his Kāvyālamkārasūtravṛ tti”
Among the scholars of east and west some of them indicated that Māgha’s time was seventh century. Among them winternitz, keith, etc. supported this opinion. Winternitz said in his book—“Māgha, the author of Sisupalavadha, must have lived, in the second half of the 7the century A.D. since his grandfather Suprabhadeva was the first minister of a king varmalāta, (mentioned in an inscription of the year 625 A.D.)
Keith also said that Māgha was in seventh century. He said in his book “History of Sanskrit Literature’—
“Now an inscription exists of an certain king Varmalāta of A.D. 625 and it is plausible to hold that thus we can date Magha somewhere in the later part of the seventh century. This accords satisfactory with the fact he is clearly later than Bharavi, who in a sense was his model, than Bhatti whose ‘mumhur muhuh he trumps’ with his ‘kimu muhur mumuhur gatabhartrkah’, ‘ever and again they fainted, their spouses gone’, and probably than Kumaradas”.
He expressed his doubtful views about the time of Māgha in his book ‘classical History of Sanskrit Literature’—
He agreed that perhaps Māgha was awared about Bhaṭṭi and the Jānakiharanakāvya—
“It is probable, rather than certain that both the Bhattikavya and the Janakiharana were now to Magha”.
S.N. Dasgupta and S.K. Dey said that, period of Māgha was seventh centyry in ‘A history of Sanskrit Literature, (Classical period) because vāmana and Ānandavardhana quoted some verses from the Śiśupālavadha in their creation:
K.M. Munshi said in his book Gujrata and its Literature that Māgha’s period was seventh century.
Here he also said that Māghakāvya is influenced by Bhaṭṭi but still it is noticeable—
“About 700, Magha lived at Bhinnamala. Bhatti’s influence can be traced in his Sisupalavadha, which inspite of defects common to the times, ranks among the best Kavyas in later Sanskrit literature and abounds in elements which make it a good epic.”
According to the opinion of M. krishnamachariar that Māgha’s time was at the end of seventh century
“He may therefore be placed in the latter half of the 7th century A.D.”
M.R. Majumdar accepted the opinion of M. Krishnamachariar.—
“Poet Māgha is placed in the later half of the Seventh century A.D”
Jogendra Das Chowdhury said in the introduction of the first edition of the epic Śiśupālavadha (first canto)—
“Thus our poet can be placed later than the second half of the seventh century A.D. and earlier than the sixth as he evidently refers to kasikavritti of Panini in sloka 112 (canto II)”.
(As it is seen in the Śiśupālavadha kāvyasamīkṣā of Bishnupada Datta p. 35.).
Sankarram Sastri said in the editorial part of his Śiśupālavadha epic as vāmana quoted Māgha’s verses.
So, Māgha was in earlier period than vamana—
“On the strength of these data, the probabaility is that Magha flourished in the later half of the 7th century A.D.”
(As it is seen in the Śiśupālavadha kāvyasamīkṣā of Bishnupada Datta. p. 35.).
The one hundred and twelfth verse of the second canto of the Śiśupālavadha is—
As Jinendra Buddhi was in the seventh century B.C. So, the period of Māgha is not in the first part of seventh century A.D. Again cainika parivrājaka It Sing gave description about the book Kāśikāvṛ tti but there is no description about Nyāsa in the commentary book of the Kāśikāvṛ tti. From this K.B. Pathak thinks that there is difference of 44 years between the death of Jayāditya, the writer of Kāśikāvṛ tti and return of Itsing. At that time Jinendra buddhi the writer of Nyās was not borned. So, the Nyāsa was written in the first part of eighth century A.D. and Nyāsa is mentioned in Māgha’s epic.
So, he thinks that period of Māgha is surely in eighth century A.D.
“Maxmuller, what can India teachaus?146, English translation of It sings works ch. xwwiv 176. It Sing does not however refer to the commentary Nyasa and from this silence K.B. Pathak (J.B.B. R. A.S XX. 303) concludes that jinendrabuddhi did not flourish during the interval of 44 years that elapsed between Jayaditya’s death and that of It Sing’s departure from India in A.D. 695. He therefore places the Magha to the later part of it, but, it must be remarked that the argumentum ex—sitent-tio cannot be much merit and to the mind of It Sing the commentary might not have struck as important as the original work”.
Commentator Mallinātha accepted Nyāsa by Jinendrabuddhi. In this context D.C Bhattacharya told:
“For even though we may admit Mallinathas ‘Comment in Maghas’ passage, a different meaning haxe certainly to be sought for the words vṛtti and nyāsa as they occur in a strikingly similar passage of Banas Harsacharita which Magha drew:
Being of 620 A.D. Bāṇabhaṭṭa did not accept Nyāsa by Jinendra buddhi in the nyāsa because Jinendrabuddhi was later than Bāṇabhaṭṭa. Jinendra buddhi was a Baudha Monk. But, It Sing did not write the name of Jinendrabuddhi in his book, India Tour. He mentioned Jayāditya, the writer of Kāśikā. From this it is proved that Jinendrabuddhi was not present at the time of It Sing’s Journey through India. Because the purpose of religious mendicant was to collect historical information and description of literary art about Bauddha religion written by various scholars. If Jinendrabuddhi was present at the time of It Sing, then he should have collect the information written by such talented scholar like jinendra buddhi.
Beside this before jinendra Buddhi there were four vṛtti writers:
“Kuni, Chulli, Bhatti and Nallura (Bengal m.s reads nillura, Kasikavivaranapanjika, p-1-2) It is evident that along with these earlier vṛittis’ there were also earlier nayasas, which led both Banbhatta and Magha too from their respective conceits”
Here if we justify the time of Māgha through the word nyāsa then Māgha should be considered as Parallel as Bānabhaṭṭa.
In this context we can remember the word nyāsa in Kālidāsa’s Abhijñānaśakuntalam—
“pratyarpitanyāsa ivāntarātmā |”
“sa vijayatāṃ ravikīrtiḥ kavitāśrita kālidāsabhāravikīrtiḥ |”
From this it is known that Bhāravi was before Māgha and the time of Bhāravi was before seventh centry.
It is proved that Māgha was after Bhāravi. Harman Jacobi said about the time of Māgha—
“We therefore cannot place Magha later than about the middle of the sixth century, and Bharavi who is older than Magha by at least a few decades, about the beging of the sixth century”.
“itivadankhristāṣdīya ṣaṣṭaśatakamadhyabhāgānnārvācīno māghakaviriti niścinoti |”
Accepting the opinion of Jacobi he also said—
“yākovīmatameva mamāpi saṃmatama |
“yataḥ prabhāvakacaritamapahāyānyatra māghasya śubhaṃkaraḥ pitṛvya āsīta siddhaśca pitṛvya putra ityadi nopalavdham | kevalamiyaṃ kivadanyeva | prabhāvakacaritaṃ ca janaśrutyadhāreṇa nirmitamiti granthārambhe—‘vahuśrutamunīśebhyaḥ prāg granthebhyaśca kānicit upaśrutyetivṛttāni varṇayiṣye kiyantapi” || iti granthakṛt svayameva vadati | atha ca tārānāthatarkavācaspatinā vācaspatye koṣe māghapadavyākhyāne—‘tāvadbhāravebhāti yāvanmāghasya nodaya ityudbhaṭaḥ iti likhitamasti, tatra klāṭapaṇḍitaḥ ‘ayaṃ ślokaḥ kvacidaṇyudbhaṭa granthe nopalabhyata iti tārānāthamākṣipati | kintu udbhaṭapadena kāśmīradeśaprasiddho jayāṇīḍa sabhāpatirbhaṭṭo dbhaṭa stārānāthasya na bibakṣitaḥ tena tu grantha vahirbhūto jñātakartṛnāmaraḥ ślokaevodbhaṭa padena vyavahṛyate | tathā ca tadīye vācaspatya eva udhbhaṭapadavyākhyāne—granthavahirbhūte lokaprasiddhe jñātakartṛtve śloke’ iti tadīyaṃ vyākhyānamasti | etat sarvaṃ paryālocya śarmavatā śārmaṇyapaṇḍitena santoṣṭavyam |”
Nāgabhaṭṭa, the grand son of Hariśchandra ruled in Bhinnamāla after Hariśchandra. Following verse proves it:
K.M. Munshi said in his book—
“But Nagbhatta soon threw off the calukyan overlordship when in C. 641 A.C Ynan chwang visited Bhillamala, the capital of Gurjaradesa.”
So, Nāgabhaṭṭa ruled the kingdom at the time of Huyena san’s journey to India. But V.A. smith told about Nāgabhaṭṭa that he was in eighth century and conqured kanauja.
He also said—
“About 800 A.D. Nagabhatta, King of the Gurjara country, conqured Kanauja to, which he shifted his capital.”
(J.R.A.S.-1907, Part–III P-923, Sqq)
K.M. Munsi also said in his book—
S.V. Dixit said in the introduction of the Śiśupālavadha (13th canto) about the time or period of Māgha that—
“Any way Magha must have come at least some decades after Bharavi, whom he clearly imitates. Bharavi is placed in the latter half of sixth century A.D. So Magha’s upper limit may be put tentatively at 650 A.D.”
According to D.C. Bhattacharya the time of Māgha is—
“It appears therefore that varmalat is the earliest king of the great Gurjara kingdom of Bhinmal, whose name has yet been brought to light. Brahmagupta the great astronomer who styles himself ‘Bhillamalakacharya’, wrote his work in A.D. 628 under king vyaghramukha of the Srichapa dynasty, who according. V. Smith (J.R.A.S. 1907, p. 923 Sqq) was presumably a king of Bhinmal. Vyaghramukha must then have been the immediate successor of varmalata, the date A.D. 625 marking the closing period of the latter’s reign. It is therefore to push Māgha’s date beyond A.D. 700 in view of his alleged reference to Jinendranyasa. For Hiuen Tsiang who visited Bhinmal about A.D. 641-2, described the reigning king as a young man of only twenty.
He is evidently the immediate successor of Vyaghramukha and therefore be looked upon as the contemporary and patron of our poet, the grandson of varmalata’s minister, as shown below:—
It Proves that Māgha was parallel to Brahmagupta. Some verses of Māgha can be seen in different books, but it has no proof. kshemendra quoted a verse in his ‘Aucityavicāracarcā’, Which is written by Māgha. Again this verse can be found in Bhrtṛhari.
The verse is—
“śīlaṃ śailataṭātpatatvabhijanaḥ sandahyatāṃ vahninā
yā śrauṣaṃ jagati śrutasya viphalaklośasya nāmā'ṇyaham |
śaurye vairiṇi vrajamāsu nipatatvarthī'stu me sarvadā,
yenaukena vinā gṛṇāstṛnalavaprāyāḥ samastā amī ||
Beside this two verses are seen in Vallabhdeva’s subhāṣitāvalī which are written by Māgha.
Ānandavardhana used many verses of Māgha in his creation at the end of nineth century. So many scholars mentioned that Māgha’s time was eighth centuny.
Many of them said that Māgha’s time was seventh century:
“anye tu saptamaśatāvdīyo'yaṃ kaviriti sambhāvayanti | tadāpi yukkamiti sambhāvyate |”
Ānadavardhana quoted two verses of Māgha. Māgha’s time can be justified basing the Vasantgarh inscription.
“mama ca bhata me mahāpratibhāprabhārave mahākavermāraghasya īśavīya sārdhaṣaṣṭa śatakāt paraḥ daśa samā yāvadprādurbhāba iti manye yataḥ khrīṣṭāvdīyāṣṭamaśatakedbhavo vāmanaḥ svīye'laṃkārasūtre māghamanusmāra |”
It can be concluded from various sources that Māgha’s time was around 860A.D. Except this Māgha’s period cannot be adjusted anywhere in other time period. So, the opinion of K. Munshi is supportable.
The Śiśupālavadha describing the slaying of the Śiśupāla is the only work known to have been composed by the poet Māgha. No other work has a distant association even with his name. The work Śiśupālavadha falls within the domain of Śravya Mahākāvya and belongs to the group Bṛhattrayī.
Footnotes and references:
K. M. Munshi: Gujarata and its Literature, p. 2.
M. Krishnamachariar: History of Classical Sanskrit literature, p. 155 (foot note. 3).
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society., p. 728.
K. M. Munshi: The glory that was Gurjaradeśa, p. 32.
D.C Sarkar: Select Inscriptions, p. 301.
K.M. Munshi: Op.cit., p. 31.
M. winternitz: History of Indian Literature, Vol-III, part-I, p.52.
Peterson, (Ed.): Subhasitavali of vallabhadeva. Introduction, p. 88.
Durgaprasad, (Ed.): Śiśupālavadha, I ntroduchon, p. 3.
Anantaramsastri vetal, (Ed.): Śiśupālavadha, Introduchon, p. 7
Herman Jacobi: “On Bharavi and Magha,’ Viena oriental Journal, Vol. III. p.145.
ibid., pp. 133-134.
Anantaramasastri vetal, (Ed.): Op. cit., preface. p. 7.
Haridas Siddhantavagisha: Op.cit., p. 870.
K.M. Munshi: Op. cit., part-III. p. 24.
ibid., pp. 30-32.
D.C. Bhattacharya: ‘Māgha and his patrons’, the Indian Antiquary, vol X LVI p. 192.
M.R. Majumder, (Ed.): Historical and cultural chronology of Gujarat, pp. 176-77.
G. Buhler: Indian Antiquary (F.N.), Vol -XVII, p-192.
M. Winternitz: History of Indian Literature, p. 53.
S. Majumdar Sastri, (Ed.): Cunningham’s Ancient Geography of India, p. 696.
G. Buhlar: Gujarata inscription No. III. A New grant of Dadda II or Prasantaraga, Indian Artiquary, Vol. XVII, p. 192, F.N.
A, Weber: History of Indian Literature, p. 196.
D.C. Bhattacharya: Op.cit., VOl. XLVI, p.191.
Herman Jacobi: on Bharavi and Magha, viena oriental Journal. Vol. III, p.144.
C. Mebel Duff, (Ed.): The chronology of India, pp. 70-71.
Macdonel: History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 278.
John clatt: The date of the poet Māgha, Viena Oriental Journal vol. IV, p. 71.
Peterson’s Second report, J.B.B. R.A.S. Vol-XVII, p. 45.
K.B. Pathak: Nrpatunja and the authorship of Kavirajamarga, J.B.B.R.A. s. Vol-XXII, p. 87.
ibid., pp. 81-115.
ibid., p. 116.
Haridas Siddnantavagisha: Op.cit., p. 108.
ibid., p. 15.
D.R. Bhandarkar: Vasantagarh in scription of varmalata, Vikram Samvat-628, Epigrapia India. pp. 187-192.
K.B. Pathak: On the date of Magha, J.B. B. R.A.S, Vol. XX, pp. 303-306.
M. Winternitz: Op.cit., vol. III, part-I, p. 52.
A.B. Keith: A History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 124.
A.B. Keith: Classical History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 54.
De and Dasgupta: A History of Sanskrit Literatutre. (Classical Period), pp. 188-89.
K.M. Munshi: Gujarata and its Literature, p.30.
M. Krishnamachariar: History of classical Sanskrit Literture, p.155.
M.R. Majumdar: Op.cit., p. 177.
Krishna Chaitanya: Sanskrit poetics, p. 91.
M. Krishnamachariar: Op.cit., p. 155 (Foot note).
D.C Bhattacharya: Op.cit., P. 191.
Harman Jacobi: Op.cit., Vol.111, p. 144.
Durgaprasad, Ed.: Op.cit. , commentary of the introduction, p.5.
K.M. Munshi: Op.cit., part-III, p. 31.
V.A. Smith, (Ed.): The early history of India, p. 378.
K.M. Munshi: Op.cit., part-III, p. 20.
S.V Dixit, (Ed.): Śiśupālavadha (Canto 1-3) introduction, p. 8.
D.C.Bhattacharya: Op.cit., Vol. XLVI, p. 191.
Acharya sesaram sharma, (Ed.): Śiśupālavadha, p. 10.
Hemanta kumar Tarkatirtha: ‘Māghakavistat kāvyaṃca’ Our Heritage, Vol, XXXI, Part II, January-June, p. 44.
Gourinātha Pathak, (Ed.): Mahākavirmāghaḥ, p. 21.