|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS (Verse 33) When the falling of frost and snow is derided by the fast clasping of the massive, lovely and plump thighs, breasts and hips of the beloved women by young men, fallen into the power of sexual love; (Verses 34-35) When four centuries, increased by ninety-three, had elapsed, according to the reckoning of the Mālavas, in the season when the massive breasts (of women) are worthy of enjoyment, on the blessed thirteenth day of the bright half of the month of Sahasya, this edifice was consecrated with the performance of auspicious ceremonies; (Verse 36-37) When considerable time had passed away and, one part of this (temple) was shattered;1 hence now, for the augmentation of their own fame was again renovated most munificently by the magnanimous guild, this whole edifice of the Sun. (Verse 38) Which is very lofty, burnished, as it were touching the sky with (its) attractive spires, (and) has become the receptacle of spotless rays of the moon and the sun at (their) rise; (Verse 39) When five centuries of years increased by twenty and nine years
had elapsed,2 on the second lunar day of the bright fortnight of the charming
month of Tapasya;
1 Fleet has rendered the verse as follows: “And, in the course of a long time, under other kings, part of this
temple, fell into disrepair.” It will thus be seen that anyaiś=cha pārthivaiḥ of the verse has been translated as “under
other kings.” This, however, is inadmissible. The word cha and the instrumental case in anyaiḥ pārthivaiḥ show
that the word samatītēna from the first quarter of the verse has to be understood after the latter also. But this has
been considered defective by Dasharatha Sharma, as “it connects samatītēna, an adjective in the singular number
with pārthīvaiḥ, a noun in the plural, while the general rule is that a noun and its defining word should be of the
same number” (IC., Vol. III, p. 380). He, however, does not cite any grammatical rule which compels one to
this procedure. As it is, there are instances, from classical poetry, of a contrary nature. Thus Bhavabhūti’s Uttararāmacharita has Yēshāṁ kulēshu savitā cha gurur=vayaṁ cha. If Sharma’s rule had been obligatory, we should have
had guravō vayaṁ cha. Similarly, in Kālidāsa’s Raghuvaṁśa, XVII. 71 we have na ch=ābhūt=tāv=iva kshayī. Here
also kshayī, an adjective in the singular number, goes not only with saḥ but also with tau which is in the dual. Nothing therefore precludes us from taking samatītēna with pārthivaiḥ, although the first is in the singular and the second
in the plural, It is better, however, to take anyais=cha pārthivaiḥ as instrumental absolute and translate it by “and
with other kings”, or “when (others were) other rulers”. Sharma further remarks: “But the significance of the
instrumental case in pārthivaiḥ, and the passive voice in vyaśīryata, a form formed from the Parasmaipadī root śṛi of
the 9th conjugation, can be brought fully, only if we translate the verse as follows: “After much time had passed,
a part of this building was destroyed by other kings.” If this translation is accepted, cha following anyaiś=becomes
meaningless. Besides, it is natural to connect samatītēna with pārthivaiḥ, as just pointed out. In this way alone cha attains its full significance. “Nor can it be argued” proceeds Sharma further “that vyaśīryata is the bhāva-vāchya form of the root vi-śṛī, for in that case the expression should have been ēkadēśēna vyaśīryata instead of ēkadēśō=sya
vyaśīryata found in the verse.” It is not quite clear why this argument has been urged. Because even Apte’s Sanskrit-English Dictionary gives for vi śṛī (pass.) the primary sense of “to be split in pieces, be shattered”, and illustrates it
with a quotation from Bhartṛihari’s Śataka, namely, viśīryēta vanē=tha vā. This suits here excellently. Part of the
temple not only fell into disrepair but was shattered within thirty-six years of its construction, may be, through
lightning, as from the inscription it appears that it was a building of considerable height. Many a monument
of the ancient period must have suffered similarly. To take one instance, it is well-known that in the celebrated
Allahābād pillar there is a large crack in the column, from about the first word of the first line, and extending down
to the beginning of the fourteenth of Samudragupta’s praśasti incised upon it and further that the bell-shaped capital
and the surmounting animal figure have not been traced and seem to have disappeared even before the time of
the Moghul emperor Jehangir. We may, therefore, take it until the contrary is proved that the Sun Temple of
Daśapura also suffered this fate. The surmise that Hūṇa vandalism was responsible for it (IC., Vol. III, p. 381)
is not well-founded, because if these barbarians had at all wanted to destroy the sacred fane, they would have done
so completely, and not destroyed it in part. Besides, it is very doubtful whether iconoclasm was at all known to
India before the advent of the Muhammadan power. The pre-Muhammadan foreigners became Hinduised as
fast as they came in touch with the Indian culture and civilisation. And, further, as a matter of fact, the Hūṇas
penetrated into the interior of India after Budhagupta whose last date is Gupta year 175=493 A.D., whereas the
date of the Mandasōr inscription is Vikrama Year 529=472 A. D.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|