North Indian Inscriptions

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS

       (Lines 9-10) who is the son of [the prosperous Samudragupta, the Mahārājādhirāja, accepted by him (as his successor)¹ (and) born of Mahādēvī Dattadēvi;

        (Lines 1-5) [Samudragupta], who was the exterminator of all kings;² who had no equal adversary on earth; [whose fame was] tasted (by the waters of the four oceans) ; who was equal to (the gods) [Dhanada, Varuṇa, Indra and Antaka]; who was [the very axe] of Kṛitānta (God of death);³ who was the giver of [many] crores of [lawfully acquired cows] and gold; [who was the performer of the aśvamēdha sacrifice, that had long decayed]:⁴

>

________________________________________________

Amma II, Ind. Ant., Vol. VII, p. 16; also in Ep. Ind., Vol. IV, p. 237, line 83). Other similar epithets, but not formed in quite the same way, are Param-Āditya-bhakta (e.g., in line 10 of No. 38 of CII., Vol. III, 1888) ; and Parama-Bhagavatī-bhakta (e.g., Ep. Ind., Vol. XIX, p. 18, lines 3 and 5-6) ; also Atyanta-Māhēśvara and Atyanta Svāmi-Mahābhairava-bhakta, e.g., Chammak Copper-plate inscription of Pravarasēna II, lines 9 and 4 (CII., Vol. III, 1888, No. 55) ; and Atyanta-Bhagavadbhakta, in No. 40 below, line 6, and Ēraṇ Stone inscription of Tōramāaṇa, line 4 (CII., Vol. III, 1888, No. 36). In the mediaeval period the epithet Parama-Vaishṇava is also met with (e.g., Ep. Ind., Vol. XIX, p. 17, line 1). Whether it is exactly identical with Parama-Bhāgavata is, however, not quite clear. The same is the case with Parama-Pāśupata which also occurs in epigraphic records (e.g., line 8 of the Verawal inscription of Arjunadēva, Ind. Ant., Vol. XI, p. 242), like Parama-Māhēśvara. These two epithets may, however, stand for two different sects of Śaivism. Similarly, in the Neulpur plate of Śubhākara of the Kara family, while this king is called Parama-Saugata, his own father Śivakara is styled Parama-Tāthāgata (Ep. Ind., Vol. XV, p. 3, lines 3-5 f). This also may indicate two different sects of Buddhism. In later times, again, a person may be an adherent of two alien sects; thus, in a Piṭhāpuram inscription, Mallapadēva describes himself as both Parama-Bhāgavata and Parama-Brahmanya (Ep. Ind., Vol. IV, p. 237, lines 82-83) ; similarly, Vaidyadēva of Prāgjyōtisha calls himself both Parama-Māhēśvara and Parama-Viishṇava (Ep. Ind., Vol. II, p. 353, line 47).
¹ The word parigṛihīta m6ust here mean ‘selected’ or ‘accepted’, as Fleet first pointed out (CII., Vol. III, 1888, p. 12, note 1). And further we must assume that what is meant here is that Chandragupta was selected by his father as heir-apparent, no doubt, from amongst his many brother, some of whom were senior to him in age. Surely in the Gupta period the practice of the nomination of the yuvarāja was prevalent. Thus, at Basāṛh, many seals have been recovered of the time of Chandragupta II, which relate to the offices connected with the adminis- tration of the yuvarāja (ASI., A.R., 1903-04, pp. 107 ff., Nos. 4, 6, 11 and 12). Generally, the choice fell upon the eldest son, but he was not recognised as yuvarāja unless he was formally anointed. The yuvarāja had the status of a Mahārāja as in the case of Gōvindagupta, son of Chandragupta II and Dhruvasvāminī (ibid., p. 107, No. 1 ; Ind. Ant., Vol. XLI, p. 3). It seems that Chandragupta II was not the eldest son of Samudragupta and is, there- fore, spoken of as being selected (as heir-apparent) by the latter. The necessity of stating it was all the greater in his case, as his elder brother, Kāchagupta (or Rāmagupta), stood for some time in the way of his ascending the Gupta throne after the demise if their father.
² The epithet, sarva-rāj-ōchchēttṛi, occurs on the reverse of some gold coins, hitherto always classed in the Imperial Gupta series (Allan, Catalogue of the Coins of the Gupta Dynasties, Intro., p. cx and pp. 15-17 ; Smith, Catalogue of the Coins in the Indian Museum, Calcutta, Vol. I, pp. 96 and 100), which have on the obverse the name of Kācha, as Fleet rightly points out, “in the place where the king’s name usually stands on coins,” with the marginal legend Kāchō gām=avajitya divaṁ karmabhir=uttamair=jayati, “Kācha, having conquered the earth, wins heaven by (his) most excellent deeds.” Further, Fleet correctly remarks, “There is nothing distinctive in this epithet, sufficient to show that it belonged only to the Early Gupta Dynasty (and, in that dynasty, to Samudragupta).” Numismatists, however, are now absolutely certain that these coins belong to the Imperial Gupta series, but while some of them assign them to his predecessor and brother called Kācha. We have also pointed out (Introduction, pp. 50-51) that Kācha must be the original and correct form of Rāma(-gupta), the elder brother of Chandragupta II, who usurped the Gupta throne but who was ultimately ousted by the latter. It is true that kācha ordinarily signifies ‘glass, crystal; the string of the scale of a balance; alkaline salt, black salt; wax; etc.’ as Fleet tells us, but he also says that kācha was used as an individual name and has actually been mentioned as the name of two rulers, kācha I and Kācha II, in one of the inscriptions in the Ajaṇṭā caves (ASWI., Vol. IV, p. 129, lines 4 and 6; CII., Vol. III, 1888, p. 27, note 4).
³ Kṛitānta-paraśu is one of the epithets applied to Samudragupta on some of his gold coins (Allan, Cat. of the Coins of the Gupta Dynasty, Intro., pp. lxxii, ff. and cx; and pp. 12 ff.; Smith, Cat. of the Coins of the Ind. Museum, Calcutta, Vol. I, pp. 96 and 104).
⁴ Fleet renders this phrase by “who was the restorer of the aśvamēdha-sacrifice, that had been long in abeyance.” This translation, though it is not an impossible one, cannot be the correct one for the reasons specified above (Introd, pp. 37-38). With it we have to compare the legend Aśvamēdha-parākramaḥ on some of the gold coins of Samudragupta. Its interpretation has also been discussed above (Introd, p. 37).