North Indian Inscriptions

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS

       (Verse 40) In the season when (Kāmadēva), whose body is purified by Hara, displays (his) arrows, having verily attained to (his) identity, with the distinct and fresh bursting-forth of the flowers of the Aśōka tree, the Kētaka, the Siṁduvāra, the pendulous Atimuktaka creeper and the Madayantika;

       (Verse 41) In the season, when the solitary large branches of the Nagana are full of the music of the swarms of bees delighted with the drinking of honey, when the lovely and exuberant Rōdhra (trees) are overstrewn with flowers newly bursting forth;

       (Verse 42) As (is) the pure sky with the moon, the breast of Śārṅgin, indeed, with the Kaustubha jewel, so is this whole extensive town decorated with (this) best structure;

       (Verse 43) As long as Īśa (Śiva) bears a mass of tawny matted hair covered with the spotless digit of the moon, (and) as long as Śārṅgin (Vishṇu) a garland of full-bloom lotus flowers clinging to (his) shoulders, so is this whole extensive town decorated with (this) best structure;

       (Verse 44) By Vatsabhaṭṭi¹ was caused to be made this edifice of the Sun through the order of the guild and in consequence of (his) devotion (to the god), and was composed with care this detailed description;²

       (Line 24) Hail to the composer, engraver, reader and listener ! May there be luck !

No. 36 A And B : PLATE XXXVI

SĀRNĀTH STONE INSCRIPTIONS OF BUDHAGUPTA; THE YEAR 157

       These two inscriptions, A and B, which bear the same draft came to light along with No. 26 when excavations were carried on by H. Hargreaves in the cold season of 1914-15 at
_____________________

hundred and twenty-nine years had elapsed,’ “not as others have taken, in the Mālava era, but, as I hold, after the construction of the temple. In other words, I have assigned the renovation of the temple to 493+529 or 1022 M. E., i.e., in 966 A.D.” (IC., Vol. IV, p. 111; S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar Commemoration Volume, pp.69-73). He argues that the temple was of such a noble and stately structure that it could not have fallen into disrepair within the comparatively short space of thirty-six years. Two agents of destruction were at work here: (1) the passage of time primarily and (2) the indifference of kings secondarily––kings who belonged to a family different from the one Because, according to Pisharoti, 966 A.D. is the date of the inscription; and no epigraphist will ever subscribe to the conclusion that palaeographically it belongs to the tenth century. Secondly, there can be no doubt that the temple was renovated by the same śrēṇī that constructed it. This is clear from verses 29, 37, 44. And it is incredible that any śrēṇī could have lasted for 529 years, that is, from Mālava year 493 to 1023 (=966 A.D.)., if Pisharoti’s view is upheld. Thirdly, why should we assume such a long period as that of 529 years to have elapsed before the renovation took place? There is nothing to show that the temple had fallen into disrepair as has been assumed by many scholars. It is quite possible that the word vyaśīryata in verse 36 means ‘was shattered’ as has been pointed out by us above. And there is nothing at all improbable in a high building being struck and partially damaged by lightning within thirty-six years of its construction.
¹ Neither Fleet nor Bühler has properly understood this verse. What it really means is that Vatsabhaṭṭi not only composed the pūrvā but was also in charge of the operations of the building and re-building of the temple. This work he undertook and executed on account of the orders of the Guild and also on account of his devotion to the deity, that is, on account of his being a worshipper of the Sun. This is the natural sense of the verse. And it is a wonder how it did not occur to other scholars who slavishly followed Fleet and Bühler. The scholar who first understood the general sense of the verse correctly was K. Rama Pisharoti (S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar Commemoration Volume, p. 70). He is, however, not correct in taking Vatsabhaṭṭi to be a sthapati or architect. He was rather a Kārāpaka such as is mentioned in many inscriptions of Northern India in connection with temples. Thus an epigraphic record of Varmalāta dated Vikrama year 682 and found in Vasantagaḍh in the Sirōhi District, Rājasthān, speaks of the crection of a fane of Kshēmāryā by the Gōshṭhī of Vāṭākarasthāna who selected one Satyadēva as the Kārāpaka for seeing the work through (Ep. Ind, Vol. IX, p. 192, verse 9). Kārāpaka does not mean ‘one who causes a temple to be constructed,’ but rather ‘a person appointed to look after the construction of a temple’ as has been so conclusively shown by Kielhorn (Ind. Ant., Vol. XIX, p. 62, note 53). Vatsabhaṭṭi thus appears to have been a Kārāpaka entrusted by the Guild with the execution of the building and re-building of the Sun temple.
² For the correct sense of the word pūrvvā, see page 241, note 1 above.