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

alphabet which is noticeable here is m, which is practically identical with that of the Allahābād pillar inscription of Samudragupta except in that there is a slightly marked curve in the left downward stroke of this letter. The other test characters, namely, l, s and h are of the western Gupta variety. The language is Sanskrit; and the extant portion of the inscription is in prose throughout. The orthography does not present anything calling for remark.

        The inscription is one of the Imperial Gupta king Chandragupta II. His name does not occur in the portion that is extant. But the instrumental case putrēṇa in line 9, immediately after the mention, in the genitive case, of Samudragupta, shows that the genealogy was continued down to, and ended with, his son and chosen successor (parigṛihīta), whose name came in line 11 or 12, and who is known from the subequent record to have been ChandraguptaII(e.g., line 19 of No. 33 below). The date of the inscription, if any was recorded, and the subject of it, were in the portion that has been broken away and lost.

TEXT1

1 . . . [Sarvva-rāj-ōchhēttuḥ pṛithiv]y[ām=apratiratha]-
2 [sya chatur-udadhi-sali]l-āsvādita-ya[śasō Dha]-
3 [nada-Varuṇ-Ēndr-Āntaka-sa]masya Kṛitānta-[paraśōḥ]
4 [nyāy-āgat-ānēka-gō]-hiraṇya-kōṭi-prada[sya chir-ō]-
5 [tsann-āśvamēdh-āharttur=mma]hārāja-śrī-Gupta-prapau[t]r[asya]
6 [mahārāja-śrī-Ghaṭōtka]cha-pautrasya mahārājādhir[āja]-
7 [śrī-Chandragupta-pu]trasya Lichchhavi-dauhitrasya mahā[dē]-
8 [vyāṁ Kumāra]d[ē]vyām=utpannasya mahārājādhirā-
9 [ja-śrī-Sa]mudraguptasya putrēṇa tat-parigṛi-
10 [hī]t[ē]na mahādēv[y]āṁ Dat[t]adēv[y]ām=ut[pan[n]ē-
11 [na2 paramabhāgavatēna mahārājādhirāja-śrī]- 12 [Chandraguptēna] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( The rest of the inscription is entirely broken away and lost.)

>

TRANSLATION

        (Lines 11-12) [By the prosperous Chandragupta, the Mahārājādhirāja, an ardent devotee of Bhagavat (Vāsudēva),3
_____________________

1 Form the original stone. The passages that have been broken away are supplied from lines, 24, 26, 28 and 29 of the Allahābād pillar inscription of Samudragupta (No. 1 above), and from lines 1 to 4 of the Bhitari pillar inscription of Skandagupta (No. 31 below).
2 These two lines have been added to show how the original record must have continued.
3 Bhāgavata literally means ‘a devotee of Bhagavat,’ and consequently Parama-Bhāgavata ‘an ardent devotee of Bhagavat.’ The term is employed as an epithet of any god or object of worship; thus, it is applied to Śaṁbhu (Śiva) in line 5 of No. 11, below; to Svāmi-Mahāsēna (Kārttikēya), in line 7 of No. 16, below; to Vishṇu, in line 6 of No. 40, below; to Varuṇavāsin (the sun), in line 13 of Deo-Baranark inscription (CII., Vol. III, 1888, No. 46) ; to Dadhikarṇṇa, lord of serpents, in line 3 of No. 18, Ep. Ind., Vol. I, p. 390; to the Buddha, in line 6 of Sāñchī Stone inscription (CII., Vol. III, 1888, No. 62) and to Jinēndra, in line 1 of the Aihoḷe inscription of Pulakēśin II (Ep. Ind., Vol. VI, p. 4). But it seems to denote Vishṇu or rather Vāsudēva when used by itself, as in bhagavat-pāda0, lines 8-9 of the Khōh plates of the Mahārāja Jayanātha of the year 177 (No. 27, CII., Vol. III, 1888) Similarly, bhāgavata denotes ‘a devotee of Bhagavat (Vāsudēva)’ when there is nothing in the context to give it any other application; thus, in the celebrated Besnagar pillar inscription, the Greek ambassador (Yōna-dūta), Hēliōdōra (Heliodoros), calls himself Bhāgavata in connection with the erection of the pillar by him as a Garuḍa-dhvaja in front of the shrine of Vāsudēva, god of gods (A.R. ASI., 1908-09, p. 128). Similarly, the term bhāgavata occurs in line 7 of the Khōh plates just referred to. The term could, however, be affixed to the name of any other god to denote devotees of that god. Thus, the Mahābhāshya, Verse 2.76, speaks of Śiva-bhāgavatas in the sense of ‘devotees of Śiva, the bhagavat.’ As regards Parama-Bhāgavata, it is a technical sectarian title, analogous to Parama-Māhēśvara (e.g., No. 38 of CII., Vol. III, 1888), Parama-Brahmanya (e.g., line 39 of the grant of
......................................................................................................................(Contd. on p. 254)

>
>