North Indian Inscriptions

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS

        It seems that Śikharasvāmin was Mantri-Kumārāmātya of Chandragupta II throughout his official career, and that his son, Pṛithivīshēṇa was so at first during the reign of Kumāragupta I but afterwards became Mahābalādhikṛita. The gift was made for the worship of Mahādēva known as Pṛthivīśvara, presumabaly the liṅga on which the inscription is engraved. As the name of the god is Pṛithivīśvara, and, of the donor, Pṛithivīshēṇa, it appears that the liṅga was so called after the donor who established it. The practice of naming gods or their temples in this manner is too common to require much elucidation.1 Further details of the grant have been lost; and even line 12, which is the last line preserved, has only the upper half of it pre- served and cannot, thus, be restored with absolute certainty. Sten Konow’s restoration may, however, be safely accepted. The benefaction made by Pṛithivīshēṇa in favour of Pṛithivīśvara was laid at the feet of Mahādēva Śailēśvara. What it most probably means is that the principal shrine on this site was that of Śailēśvara. which consequently had a treasury house of its own and that the money grant contributed by Pṛithivīshēṇa was deposited there for being utilised on behalf of the god Pṛithivīśvara, founded by him. How exactly this grant was to be expended is not known, but immediately thereafter we find mention made of some persons, apparently Brāhmaṇas, who hailed from Ayōdhyā, pertained to various gōtras and charaṇas, and were pro- ficient in penances, sacred recitation, in the mantras, sūtras, bhāshyas and pravachanas. About seven letters were engraved thereafter, but these cannot be restored with any degree of plausi-bility. Only four letters, dēva-d[r*]ōṇ[y*]āṁ, are clear enough at the end of this line. This word, according to Monier-William’s Sanskrit-English Dictionary, means ‘an idol procession (orig. ablution)’; and the St. Petersburg Lexicon refers to the Trikāṇḍa-śēsha 2, 7, 8 and the Hārā-valī 129^.2 It seems that the Brāhmaṇas adverted to above were put in charge of this duty in connection with the god Pṛithivīśvara and that, consequently, Pṛithivīshēṇa made his grant for this purpose.

TEXT

1 Namō Mahādēvāya |³ Ma[hā]rājā[dhi]rāja-[śrī-Cha][ndragupta-pād-ā]-
2 nudhyātasya chatudhudadhi⁴-salil-āsvādita-ya[śasō Mahārājā*]-
3 dhirāja-śrī-Kumāraguptasya vijaya-rājya-saṁvatsara⁵ –śa[tē] saptadaś-[ōttarē]
___________________________________________

¹ Thus Alla, son of Vāillabhaṭṭa, who was in charge of the Gōpādri (Gwalior) fort in the time of the Imperial Pratihāra king, Bhōjadēva I, built a temple of Vishṇu called Vāllaibhaṭṭasvāmin (Ep. Ind., Vol. I, p. 159, line 6) after his father. Nārāyaṇavarman, a feudatory chieftain of the Pāla monarch, Dharmapāla founded a temple of Vishṇu under the name of Nanna-Nārāyaṇa (ibid., Vol. IV, p.250, line 50; also p. 247), where the first component, Nanna, is obviously an abbreviation of the founder’s name. Corresponding to Nanna-Nārāyaṇa is Kamala-Nārāyaṇa (Bom. gaz., Vol. I, Part II, p.569) under which name the Kadamba queen Kamalādēvī constructed a temple of Vishṇu at Dēgāṁve. Similarly, Mathanadēva, a feudatory prince of the Imperial Pratihāra king, Kshitipāladēva, founded a temple of Mahādēva called Lachchhukēśvara (Ep. Ind., Vol. III, p. 266, lines 8-9) after his mother Lachchhukā. We read also of a monastery shrine of Śiva named Nōhalēśvara (ibid., Vol. I, p. 262, line 32 and p. 270, note 46) after Nōhalā, wife of the Kalachuri ruler Kēyūravarsha. Similarly we hear of a shrine of Sūrya under the name of Indrādityadēva built by a Chāhamāna chief called Indrarāja (ibid., Vol. XIV, p. 185, line 18; p. 186, line 23; p. 187, lines 31-32).
² It is, however, doubtful whether this is the sense of the word dēvadrōṇi here intended. The same word occurs in line 6 of a Talēśvara copper-plate (Ep. Ind., Vol. XIII, p. 115), where the same meaning is adopted (p.117). As the plate, however, came from the hilly district of Almora, it is better to take the word in the sense of ‘the Valley of (the shrine of) the God.’ This agrees with Paśchimadrōṇi which is mentioned in line 24 and is evidently distinguished from Dēva-drōṇī, This may further be compared to bṛihad-drōṇī mentioned as the site of a shrine in a Rajaputana inscription summarised in PRAC. W.C., 1909-10, p. 57. Perhaps, this is not the sense of the word drōṇī used in this record, as the inscribed liṅga stone was found in the plains, and, not in the mountainous region of Uttar Pradesh.
³ Expressed by a curve.
⁴ Read chatur-udadhi-.
⁵ The reading is clearly saṁvatsara- and not saṁvatsar[ē] as given by Konow.