|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
POLITICAL HISTORY was a title of Chandragupta II. And we have already seen from a Sāñchī inscription (No. 9 below) that this Gupta sovereign was reigning till Gupta year 93=411-12 A.D., that is, for at least seven years after this date for Naravarman. The latter was thus a tributary prince of Chandragupta IIâa conclusion which is in keeping with the fact that his son and grandson, namely, Viśvavarman and Bandhuvarman, were feudatories of Kumāragupta I. Students of history need not be told that Vikramāditya has become a favourite hero of the fable literature. Popular stories clustering round his name have been narrated not only in the Siṁhāsanadvātriṁśat, Vētālapañchaviṁśati, Mērutuṅga’s Prabandhachintāmaṇi and Rājaśēkhara’s Chaturviṁśatiprabandha but also in Kshēmēndra’s Bṛihatkathāmañjarī, Sōmadēva’s Kathāsarit-sāgara and Kālidāsa’s Jyōtirvidābharaṇa. It is quite clear from these popular tales and traditions that Vikramāditya, whosoever he was, was not only a yōgī and Siddha who could tackle and control evil spirits but also a Śakāri or foe of the Śakas who founded the Vikrama era, and above all, a patron of arts and sciences. Was he one individual who satisfied all these conditions, or was he one hero who drew to himself tales of earlier and later champions? Of all the Vikramādityas known to history, that is, known to epigraphy and numismatics, Chandragupta II was the earliest and perhaps the most famous. Let us see whether or how far he answers to the traditions centering round his name. Was he believed to be a Siddha or yōgī who could tame malicious spirits ? In this connection reference may be made to the Guttas (Guptas) of Guttal in Dharwar District, Karnataka, who claim their descent from Chandragupta-Vikramāditya, a ruler of Ujjayanī and Pāṭaliputra. We have pointed out that this Chandragupta cannot but be Chandragupta II of the Imperial Gupta dynasty. Now, in the records of these Guttas there is one passage which says that at Ujjain (Chandragupta-) Vikramāditya mastered the ashṭa-mahāsiddhi, “eight great supernatural powers”, and another, that he ruled over the Vētālas or demons.1 It is thus plain that, in the thirteenth century A.D. when the Guttas of Guttal flourished, the Vikramāditya who was credited with the development of supernatural powers and the control of Vētālas was regarded as no other than Chandragupta II. At any rate, that was the tradition handed down in the Gutta family, who traced lineage to this Chandragupta.
But have we got evidence of an earlier period in support of this statement? Now in the Dēvīchandraguptam Chandragupta is represented as being intent upon performing some ceremony to propitiate Vētāla with a view to warding off the calamity threatened by the Śakapati upon the camp of Rāmagupta (Kāchagupta).2 The same event along with the charges of murdering the elder brother and carrying on incestuous intercourse with his wife has been referred to in the Sāngli3 and Cambay4 plates of the Rāshṭrakūṭa king Gōvinda IV, to which our attention was first drawn by V. V. Mirashi.5 The question may now further be asked whether any confirmation of this point, partial
or of any kind, is forthcoming from the early Gupta inscriptions. Attention may, in this
connection, be drawn to the undated Udayagiri cave inscription of Chandragupta (No. 11
below). We have already pointed out that the very first verse of this record describes this king
as Antarjyōtiḥ ‘Inner or Spiritual Light’. The verse number three it calls him a ṛishi in
the phrase rājādhirāj-arshēḥ coupled with his name. And the term ṛishi means not only ‘a saint
or sage’, but also ‘an ascetic or anchorite’. Epigraphic evidence, contemporary and later,
thus points to the Siddha or yōgī Vikramāditya of tradition being no other than Chandragupta II
of the Imperial Gupta line. That the epithet Śakāri, which is applied to Vikramāditya of tradi- 1 B. G., Vol. I, pt. ii, pp. 579-80.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|