North Indian Inscriptions

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS

There are, however, two representations of his which are singular, and they are both found at Kārvāṇ, the place where this last incarnation of Śiva came off and also passed away. Here we have two liṅgas with the portraits of Lakulī sculptured in front. One of these is in the temple of Naklēśvar and the other, in that of Rājarājēśvar, both at Kārvāṇ. If they were mere liṅgas, how could they be distinguished one from the other? How could we say that one liṅga denoted one āchārya, another liṅga another āchārya and so on? It will thus be seen that the Śiva liṅga has been combined with the representation of Lakulī into one image. It may be asked: What could be the meaning of this? Now, the Purāṇas and the inscriptions are unanimous in saying that Lakulī was the originator of certain austerities and religious practices called the Pāśupata or Māhēśvara yōga, which his pupils disseminated. And it is well-known that when a yōgī passes away, he does not die like an ordinary mortal with his last breath going out of his earthly nostrils, but rather by a yōga feat which enables him to pass it through the brahmarandhra, that is, by breaking through his human skull. It is only in this manner that he is absorbed into Brahman, if he is a Vedantist, or into Śiva, if he is a Pāśupata or Māhēśvara. But as Lakulī was a worshipper of Śiva, we have to suppose that the two sculptures from Kārvāṇ represent obviously the absorption of Lakulī into the divinity of Śiva. It is therefore not at all unreasonable to suppose that even in the case of Upamitēśvara and Kapilēśvara, we had not mere Śiva liṅgas set up here but rather liṅgas with portraits of Upamita and Kapila carved into them, as is the case with Lakulī in the two images of Kārvāṇ. Upamita and Kapila, being descendants of Kuśika, must have been experts in the Pāśupata yōga. We have therefore to presume that they too must have passed away like the yōgins by driving away their prāṇa-vāya through the brahma-randhra. They must have thereby merged themselves into the godhead of Śiva . This alone can explain why all these departed ascetics of the Lakulī sect have received the divine title of bhagavat. The teacher, Uditāchārya, who was still living and who was not yet absorbed into Śiva, was not to, and, in fact, cannot, be honoured with this supreme title. He has, therefore, been merely styled ārya. Here it may be asked whether even this title has at all any significance of its own. In this connection my attention had been drawn by my late lamented friend Jogendra Chandra Ghosh, to a verse in the Cintra praśasti.¹ It is with reference to Tripurāntaka, the ascetic-teacher of the Gārgya line, who has been referred to above. He was a contemporary of the Chaulukya king Sāraṅgadēva, during whose time the inscription was engraved. The verse runs thus:

................Iha sākshād=Umākāṁtaḥ śrīmān Gaṇḍa-Bṛihaspatiḥ |
................Āryam=ēnaṁ vinirmāya shashṭhaṁ chakrē mahattaram [||] 34

        â€œHere the illustrious Gaṇḍa Bṛihaspati, visibly the husband of Umā, having made him an Ārya, appointed him sixth Mahattara.”

        What the verse says is that Gaṇḍa-Bṛihaspati, who was apparently the State Officer in charge of the religious monuments, made Tripurāntaka an ārya and then appointed him sixth Mahattara. Bühler who edited the inscription was himself not sure whether Ārya and Mahattara referred to officers, or were mere titles. The second alternative is considered by him as more probable. Personally, however, I think that Mahattara denotes an officer, and corresponds possibly to the modern Mahant, the head of a religious order. As regards ārya, it is worthy of note that Hēmachandra’s Abhidhānachintāmaṇi gives it as a synonym of prabhu, “a master, an owner.”² This fits excellently not only in the Cintra praśasti, but also in our record. For in the first case we know that Tripurāntaka built five temples of which he legitimately could be an Ārya or owner. In the second case we have seen that Uditāchārya raised two
_______________________________

¹ Ep. Ind., Vol. I, pp. 271 ff.
² Martya-kāṇḍa, paryāya I (verse 23).