Panchratre Jayakhya Samhita

SR No.: 020424
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Embar Krishnamacharya
Publisher: Orental Institute
Publication Year: 1967
Total Pages: 588
Language: Sanskrit
Classification: Book_Devnagari
File Size: 23 MB

Page 39

FOREWORD
being projected towards the right. After the Kushān period the letter again reverted to the original form but again in the inscription of Samudragupta it got back its modified forin with the circular knob. But later, in Bilsad ( 414 A.D., ) in Indore ( 465 A.D.) and then in Torināna ( 500 A.D.) inscriptions the letter developed further peculiar characteristics. The horizontal line of the original form of 'N' took the form of an angle with the corner placed above, the vertical line was shortened, and the top line developed in the form of a bar. Now therefore, it is quite evident how this letter can be com. pared to a man. The top line represents the head, the short vertical line represents the trunk, and the two arms of the angle represent the two legs.
In order that the above discussion may be followed more closely a chart (fig. 1) is given with representations of the different letters mentioned above witb their various modi. fications which took place in later times from the time of Asoka.
From the chart it becomes quite clear that the letters re. ferred to in the body of the work and described therein belonged to a time not anterior to the time of the Bilsad inscription (414 A.D.) and not later than the Tormāna inscription (cir. 500 A. D.) and we shall not be far from the truth if we place the date of the composition of the above work only on palæographical grounds in about 450 A.D. This also shows how the doctrinal viewpoint in determining the age of this work agrees marvellously with the viewpoint of Palaeo. graphy, though circumscribed to a certain extent. 1
1.
In order to check this date the portions dealing with Architecture, Sculpture, Silpa as given in chapter 20 pp 199–209 and the philosophical ideas and terms such Sabdabrahma (p. 7,217) Avidyā (p. 32), Māyā (p. 99 ) may also be properly examined. Through these sources the work also cannot have an antiquity earlier than the time arrived at by the methods here worked out.