|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA to be his grandfather Narasiṁha III (c. 1327-53 A.D.) who was apparently distinguished from his reigning grandson bearing his own name by the said distinguishing epithet. There is thus some evidence to show that the Gaṅga king Narasiṁha III was referred to as the ‘big’ Narasiṁha in the records of the time of his grandson Narasiṁha IV. Although this does not preclude the possibility of an earlier Narasiṁha being distinguished from one of his predecessors of the same name in a similar way, we are inclined to identify the king, during whose reign the inscription under review was engraved, with Narasiṁha IV as the palæography of the record seems to support this identification. Moreover the details of the date quoted in the inscription do not appear to suit the reign of Narasiṁha II or Narasiṁha III. Manmohan Chakravarti, in his account of the chronology of the Eastern Gaṅga kings,[1] fixed 1378-79 A.D. as the initial year of Narasiṁha IV. The details of the date in our record, viz., Aṅka 22 (i.e. 18th regnal year), Kārttika(Pūrṇimānta)-ba. 7, Sunday, would thus correspond regularly to September 24, 1396 A.D. The Oriya part records that an area of 12 Vāṭīs of land called Vāghamarā (situated at Vāghamārā according to the Tamil version) was granted as Ēkādaśa-Rudra-bhikshā in favour of the Siddhēśvara-maṭha at the illustrious Kṛittivāsa-kshētra (modern Bhubaneswar) for the longevity and fulfillment of the desires of the elder Narasiṁhadēva who was apparently one of the past kings of the country. The significance of the expression Ēkādaśa-Rudra-bhikshā is clear from the Tamil part which states that the grant was meant for the feeding of Śaiva ascetics for the favour of the eleven Rudras. Some time after the creation of the endowment, Tapōrāja-mahāmuni, the pontiff of the Maṭha, mortgaged the land to Durgābhaṭṭa-āchārya from whom he borrowed 150 [gold] Māḍhas. He also borrowed ten [gold] Māḍhas and 30 Pauṭīs of paddy from Uttarēśvara-nāyaka. Pauṭī is a measure of capacity prevalent in Orissa, which is equal to ten maunds. The word is probably derived from Sanskrit pravarti or pravartikā which was equal to five khārīs according to Sarvānanda’s Ṭīkāsarvasva on the Amarakōśa, II, 9, 89. The same measure is possibly mentioned in certain inscriptions from Bengal and Orissa.[2]
Durgābhaṭṭa-āchārya paid up Tapōrāja-mahāmuni’s debt to Uttarēśvara-nāyaka and calculated the total amount including interest, payable to him by Tapōrāja-mahāmuni, to be altogether 180 [gold] Māḍhas. This no doubt included 150 Māḍhas lent by himself and 10 [gold] Māḍhas paid by him to Uttarēśvara-nāyaka as well as the interest accruing to these amounts and the price of the paddy with interest. Meanwhile Tapōrāja-mahāmuni passed away and he was succeeded in the pontificate by Tapaśchakravartin. Since Durgābhaṭṭa-āchārya and Tapaśchakravartin were born under the same rāśi or zodiacal sign, the former became a friend of the latter. Hence Durgābhaṭṭa-āchārya wrote off the debt of 180 [gold] Māḍhas, due to him from the head of the monastery, for the continuance of the Ēkādaśa-Rudra-bhikshā for the longevity and the fulfillment of the desires of the reigning monarch Vīra-Naranārasiṁhadēva. The Tamil version of these transactions while giving some additional information also differs in some details. The purpose of the original grant is stated to have been the feeding of the Māhēśvaras (i.e. devotees of Mahēśvara or Śiva) for the propitiation of the eleven Rudras. The amount borrowed by Taparāja-munigaḷ is stated to be 148 Māḍais only as against 150 Māḍhas mentioned in the Oriya part. The reason of this discrepancy seems to be that 2 out of the 150 Māḍhas were paid to the writer and engraver of the document concerned. Thus while the creditor’s version of the transaction in the Oriya part refers to the gross amount, the debtor’s version puts the net amount he received after deducting the amount paid to the writer and the engraver. After the __________________________________________________
[1]JASB, Vol. XXII, 1903, pp. 97 ff.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
