|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS raja-Paishṭapuraka-Mahēndragiri-Kauṭṭūraka-Svāmidatt1-Airaṇḍapallaka-
Damana-Kāñchēyaka-Vishṇugōp-Āvamuktaka- 1 This is not easy passage to deal with. Bhau Daji renders it by “Svāmidatta of Pishṭapura, Mahēndragiri
and Kuḍūra” (JBBRAS., Vol. IX, p. cxcviii), where Kuḍūra is a mis-reading for Kōṭṭūra. But “this is not admissible” as Fleet correctly remarks, “because it would require mahēndragirika in the text, instead of mahēndragiri,’ as it
actually exists. It is possible of find the final ka in the text as it stands, by dividing the words into Mahēndragirik-Auṭṭūraka. And, as a matter of fact, the passage has been translated by Bhagwanlal Indraji thus: “Svāmidatta
of Paishṭapura Mahēndra-Giri and Auṭṭura” (BG., Vol. I, Part i, p. 63). Even then this procedure is open to
the objection that we should have had Māhēndragirika instead of Mahēndragirika. If mahēndragiri is to be taken as
one word and as denoting the mountain”, it is possible, says Fleet, to render the passage by “Svāmidatta of Pishṭapura and of Kōṭṭūra on Mahēndragiri,” “And it might be supported by the fact that we have a Koṭṭūr on almost
the same range of hills as that to which the Mahēndragiri belongs; viz., the ‘Kailaskoṭṭa and Kylascottah’ of the
map (Indian Atlas, Sheet No. 107; Lat. 190 14' ; Long. 83º 36' E.) which represents Kailāsa-Koṭṭa and Kailāsa-Koṭṭūr and seems to be a place of importance. But the objection to this interpretation is that none of the other
kings’ names, mentioned in this inscription, is coupled with more than one locality. “This leads us”, remarks
Fleet correctly, “to connect Svāmidatta with Koṭṭūra only, and to find the name of another king in connection
with Pishṭapura. The first inclination then might be, to divide the text thus, Paishṭapuraka-Mahēndragiri-Kauṭṭūraka-Svāmidatta; and to translate, ‘Mahēndragiri of Pishṭapura and Svāmidatta of Koṭṭūra’.” It is a great pity
that Fleet did not stick to his first inclination, and divided the words following Maṇṭarāja into Paishṭapuraka-Mahēndra and giri Kauṭṭūraka-Svāmidatta and translated them as “Mahēndra of Pishṭapura, Svāmidatta of Koṭṭūra on
the hill”. The reason he specifies in support of this view is that “though giri or gīr is a very common termination
of proper names in the present day, …….it is used only as a religious title, and is affixed only to the names of
Gōsāvīs; and even among them it would seem to be confined to one particular division of the Daśanāmī-Gōsāvīs
[see H. H. Wilson’s Works (Rost’s edition), Vol. I, p. 202; Molesworth, Marāṭhī Dictionary, s. v. gīr; and Monier
Williams, Sanskrit Dictionary, s.v., giri]. I think, therefore, that, in the absence of any other analogous instance,
it would in all probability be incorrect to accept is was a suitable termination for a king’s name.” Fleet’s view,
however, sets the rules of grammar completely at naught. The vṛiddhi in Kauṭṭūraka clearly shows that the word
giri preceding it is to be connected with Mahēndra. If giri had really formed part of the name of the country whose
ruler Svāmidatta was, we should have had Gairikōṭṭūraka instead of Girikauṭṭūraka. Besides, it is not necessary to
take giri here as a suffix similar to that of giri or gīr of Gōsāvīs, as he has done. It is best to understand the whole of
Mahēndragiri as the proper name of the ruler of Pishṭapura. Instances are not unknown of names of sacred mountains being adopted as individual names whether in ancient or modern times (see above, Introduction, p. 15).
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|