SPURIOUS SUDI PLATES.
fifteen cantos, or on the fifteenth canto, of the Kirâtârjunîya (of Bhâravi). An author named
Nṛipatuṅga, whom Mr. Rice identifies with the Râshṭrakûṭa king Amôghavarsha I. (A.D.
814-15 to 876-78) says that among previous writers there were Vimala, Udata, Nâgârjuna,
Jayabandhu, and Durvinîta ; from which Mr. Rice derives corroborative evidence of the existence
of the Western Gaṅga king Durvinîta.1 But, granting that the Nṛipatuṅga in question is
Amôghavarsha I., the statement only proves that was an author named Durvinîta at
some time before about A. D. 850 ; and there is nothing in it, either to establish any particular
date for him, or even to shew that he was a Gaṅga. An unpublished grant from Hebbûr states
that Durvinîta was taught by the author of the Śabdâvatâra ; i.e., Mr. Rice says, by
Pûjyapâda,— whose date, he holds, is thus established.2 Whether this author was the
celebrated Pûjyapâda,— what the date of that Pûjyapâda was,— and what, if anything, it
may prove in connection with Durvinîta,— I am not at present prepared to consider. But, at
any rate, the date which is to deduced for Durvinîta from these spurious records, has no
weight of any kind in determining the date of Pûjyapâda.
......His son was Mushkara, whose name appears in the British Museum grant in the form of
Mokkara. The same record styles him either Râja or Vṛiddharâja ; but the Hosûr and
Nâgamaṅgala grants do not give him any title. The British Museum grant says that he married
a daughter of Sindhurâja, or of the king of Sindhu. The Lakshmêshwar inscription mentions
a Jain temple called Mukkaravasati :3 this may possibly be taken as shewing that, at some
time before A.D. 978, there really was a Gaṅga king or prince named Mushkara, Mukkara, or
Mokkara : but it fixes no specific date for him ; and it can hardly be said to suffice to prove
the genealogy given in the spurious records.
......His son was Vikrama or Śrîvikrama,4 with whose name, again, the British Museum grant
connects the title of Râja or Vṛiddharâja ; the Hosûr and Nâgamaṅgala grants do not give
him any title. No historical facts are stated in connection with him.
......His son was Bhûvikrama, with whose name the British Museum grant connects the title of
Mahâdhirâja ; the Hosûr and Nâgamaṅgala grants do not give him any title. He seems to have
had the biruda of Śrîvallabha. And he is said to have defeated an unnamed Pallava king, in
battle at a place named Viḷanda or Viḷandha. The British Museum grant says also that he
subjugated the whole of the Pallava dominions.
......His younger brother was Śivamâra, to whose name the Hosûr and Nâgamaṅgala grants
attach the genuine title of Mahârâja. He had the biruda of Nava-Kâma. Also, from a
copper-plate grant from Suradhênupura, Mr. Rice gives him the biruda of Nava-Chôka.5 And he
further suggests that he may be the Kambayya, supposed to be also called Nava-Lôka, who is
mentioned in one of the Śravaṇa-Beḷgoḷa inscriptions as the son of a king named Śrîvallabha :6
but, from ink-impressions received from Dr. Hultzsch, I am able to say that the true biruda in
the inscription in question is Raṇâvalôka ; and this, compared with Khaḍgâvalôka in the case of
Dantidurga, is suggestive of a Râshṭrakûṭa king or prince.
......The name of Śivamâra’s son is not given in the Hosûr, Nâgamaṅagala, and British Museum
grants. And they also state no history in connection with him. But the Udayêndiram
grant,— which, as regards the interval, simply tells us that, in the line of Koṅgaṇivarman,
there were Vishṇugôpa, Hari, Mâdhava, Durvinîta, Bhûvikrama, and “other kings,”— seems to
name him either as Pṛithuyaśas or as Pṛithivîpati ; and it mentions, in connection with him, a
__________________________________________________________________________________________
......1 Karṇâṭaka-Śabdhânuśâanam, Introd. pp. 7, 19, 23.
......2 Coorg Inscriptions, Introd. p. 3, and Inscriptions at Śravaṇa-Beḷgoḷa, Introd. pp. 53 and note, 69 ; see also
Karṇâṭaka-Śabdhânuśâanam, Introd. pp. 18, 19.
......3 Ind. Ant. Vol. VII. p. 109.
......4 The following name, ‘Bhûvikrama,’ suggests that śrî may here be intended to be part of the
name. But
otherwise it would not be admissible (see Gupta Inscriptions, p. 9, note).
......5 Inscriptions at Śravaṇa-Beḷgoḷa, Introd. 14, 68.
......6 ibid.
|