|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
SPURIOUS SUDI PLATES. Râjasiṁha, otherwise called Hastimalla, a vassal of the Chôḷa king Parântaka I.,— published by Mr. Foulkes, and allotted by him to about A.D. 920,1— adds the information that his city was Kuvaḷâlapura, which is the modern Kôlar, in the east of Mysore, and that his banner was the piñchhadhvaja or banner of a bunch of feathers ;2 and it says that, “while he was yet a little boy, playing at big boys’ games, he cut in two a great stone pillar, at a single stroke, with the supple sword which he held in his hand.” In connection with the banner thus mentioned, it may be noted that the family crest was an elephant, which appears on the seals of the grants, and is also mentioned in line 7 of the Harihar grant. The Udayêndiram grant further states that the Gaṅga lineage originated from a saint named Kaṇva, born in the race of Kâśyapa, and owed its greatness to a certain Siṁhanandin. Here Mr. Foulkes read mahi[pa], ‘king.’ And Mr. Rice,— on the strength of the mention, elsewhere, and in no connection with the Gaṅgas, of a Jain teacher named Siṁhanandin, who, in a rather obscure passage, appear to be described as giving to Samantabhadra, while the latter was still a disciple, the sharp sword of meditation on the divine Arhat which breaks, like a line of stone pillars, the army of destrtuctive sins, whereby Samantabhadra broke with his sword the solid stone that barred the road to the acquisition of the goddess of sovereignty,3 has altered mahipa into munipa, ‘saint, or leader of saints,’ and has arrived at the conclusion that Koṅgaṇivarman “was aided, in establishing his kingdom, by his “Guru Siṁhanandin.” He has found some apparent corroboration in the Humcha inscription. And he has finally developed all this into the assertion that Siṁhanandin presented to Koṅgaṇivarman a miraculous sword, with which, at one blow, he cut through the stone pillar which was the chief obstacle in the way of his securing the throne.4 But the purely conjectural alteration of mahipa into munipa is rather a violent step. And, whatever the Âchârya Siṁhanandin of the Humcha inscription may have done, the Udayêndiram record distinctly implies an interval,— of unspecified but appreciable duration,— between the Siṁhanandin, who is mentioned in it, and Koṅgaṇivarman.
......His son was Mâdhava I., Who in the Humcha inscription is called Kiriya-Mâdhava, ‘the younger or lesser Mâdhava.’ His title appears as Mahârâjâdhirâja in the Tanjore grant ; as Adhirâja which, like the preceding, is a genuine title, in the Mallohaḷḷi grant No. 3 ; and as Mahâdhirâja in all the others. No historical facts are stated in connection with him. But he is said to have been the author of a commentary on the Dattakasûtra,— a work on the law of adoption. ......His son was Harivarman, who in the Tanjore grant is called Arivarman. His title appears
as Mahârâjâdhirâja in the Tanjore grant ; in the Mallohaḷḷi grant No. 3, as Mârâja, which is a
corrupt form, and a very suspicious and instructive one, of the genuine title Mahârâja ; and
as Mahâdhirâja in all the others. In connection with him, again, no historical facts are
stated. But the Tanjore grant indicates that his capital was Taḷavanapura, which Mr. Rice has
identified with Taḷakâḍ on the Kâvêrî, about thirty miles east by south from the town of
Mysore ;5 and Mr. Rice considers that this town continued to be the royal residence from that
time onwards : before that time, he says,— on the authority of the Koṅgudêśa-Râjâkkaḷ,— the ......1 Manual of the Salem District, Vol. II. P. 369.— As regards the period of this record, Parântaka I. came
three generations before Śaka-Saṁvat 926 (expired), = A. D. 1004-1005 (see South-Ind. Inscrs. Vol. I. p. 112)
and, therefore, closely about A. D. 920.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|