The Indian Analyst
 

North Indian Inscriptions

 

 

Contents

Introduction

Contents

Preface

List of Plates

Abbreviations

Additions and Corrections

Images

Introduction

Political History

Administration

Social History

Religious History

Literary History

Gupta Era

Krita Era

Texts and Translations

The Gupta Inscriptions

Index

Other South-Indian Inscriptions 

Volume 1

Volume 2

Volume 3

Vol. 4 - 8

Volume 9

Volume 10

Volume 11

Volume 12

Volume 13

Volume 14

Volume 15

Volume 16

Volume 17

Volume 18

Volume 19

Volume 20

Volume 22
Part 1

Volume 22
Part 2

Volume 23

Volume 24

Volume 26

Volume 27

Tiruvarur

Darasuram

Konerirajapuram

Tanjavur

Annual Reports 1935-1944

Annual Reports 1945- 1947

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 2, Part 2

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 7, Part 3

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 1

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 2

Epigraphica Indica

Epigraphia Indica Volume 3

Epigraphia
Indica Volume 4

Epigraphia Indica Volume 6

Epigraphia Indica Volume 7

Epigraphia Indica Volume 8

Epigraphia Indica Volume 27

Epigraphia Indica Volume 29

Epigraphia Indica Volume 30

Epigraphia Indica Volume 31

Epigraphia Indica Volume 32

Paramaras Volume 7, Part 2

Śilāhāras Volume 6, Part 2

Vākāṭakas Volume 5

Early Gupta Inscriptions

Archaeological Links

Archaeological-Survey of India

Pudukkottai

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS

where numerous Kushāṇa epigraphs have been unearthed. How far this formulary was peculiar to Mathurā we do not know; for, in the second Mathurā inscription of this king, neither his name nor his titles have been preserved.

       The date of the inscription is 61, which, of course, has to be referred to the Gupta era. It is rather unfortunate that the important words in line 3-5 which contain the details of the date have been effaced. The first part of it tells us to what regnal year of Chandragupta this date corresponds. It is a serious loss that this part has not been preserved. The second part tells us to what kāla or era the year 61 belonged. It is all but certain that Gupta-kāla was engraved. But nothing would have been better if the word Gupta had been preserved beyond all doubt.1 Then again, the name of the month also has been destroyed. Fortunately for us, the word prathamē has been preserved immediately after the specification of the month. This shows that in the year 61 there was an intercalary month. On the evidence of Jaina works the late K. B. Pathak has proved that expired or current Gupta years can be converted into corresponding (expired or current) Śaka years by adding 241.2 Thus, if we add 241 to 61 of Gupta year of our inscription, we obtain 302 Śaka=380 A.D. We do not yet know whether this Gupta year is current or expired. We leave it undecided for the time being. Now, if we refer to page 42 of Table X of the Indian Chronology by Swamikannu Pillai, we find that there was an additional month only in A.D. 380, and none in 378 or in 381-82, and that in A.D. 380 Āshāḍha was the intercalary month. The lacuna before prathamē can thus be easily filled up with Āshāḍha-māsē, We thus find that the month of our date must be Āshāḍha. We also find that the date of our record was a current Gupta year. Because the intercalary month came only in A.D. 380 current, the Gupta year 61 must therefore be also a current year. The earliest date we had for Chandragupta II before the discovery of this record was Gupta year 82, supplied by an Udayagiri cave inscription of his feudatory chieftain of the Sankānīka family (No. 7 below). But the date furnished by our epigraph is 61, which is thus twenty-one years earlier. It also sheds some light on the length of his reign. The latest known date for this Gupta sovereign is 93 (No. 9 below). Therefore, Chandragupta II must have had a reign of at least 32 years.

>

       After the specification of the date, the inscription introduces us to a teacher who was a Māhēśvara or devotee of Śiva and was called Uditāchārya. His pedigree is given. But unfortunately the name of his teacher is not clearly preserved. It is, however, pretty certain that it was Upamita. The latter, again, was a pupil of Kapila, and Kapila, a pupil of Parāśara. We have thus a list of Māhēśvara teachers extending over four generations. In fact, Uditāchārya has been mentioned as chaturtha or fourth in succession from Parāśara. This is intelligible and quite all right, as it is in an unbroken order. But Uditāchārya has been also specifically mentioned as daśama or tenth in descent from Kuśika. As no names of the intervening teachers have been given and Uditāchārya is specified as tenth in succession from Kuśika, the only possible inference is that Kuśika, though he did not originate any new doctrine or sect, must have been at least the founder of a line of teachers. We have already dealt with this point elsewhere,3 but what we have to note here is that while the living teacher Uditāchārya is called merely an Ārya, all the others, namely, Upamita, Kapila, Parāśara and Kuśika, have received the supreme designation of Bhagavat, which is generally associated with personages who are supposed to have attained to the rank of divinity.

       The object of the inscription is to record that Uditāchārya, who was the Māhēśvara teacher living, established two images, called Kapilēśvara and Upamitēśvara in the Guru-āyatana. The
___________________

1 [For other views about the restoration of this lost portion, see Sel. Ins., 1965, p. 277 and Journal of Ancient Indian History , Vol. III, 1970, pp,. 113-17–Ed.].
2 Ind. Ant. Vol. XLVI, p. 293.
3 See above, Introduction, pp. 133-35.

>
>