South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

Among the three epithets applied to Narasiṁhavarman I in the present record, the Rēyūru grant applies bahu-samara-labdha-yaśaḥ-prakāśa and vidhi-vihita-sarva-maryāda to Paramēśvaravarman I and vasudhātal-aika-vīra (forming the latter part of a bigger epithet) to Narasiṁhavarman II. In the inscription under study, Paramēśvaravarman I has been called prajā-saṁraṁ-jana-paripālana-nitya-yukta and Kaliyuga-dōsh-āvasanna-dharm-ōddharaṇa-nitya-sannaddha while these epithets are applied to Narasiṁhavarman II in the Rēyūru grant in the slightly modified forms : prajā-saṁraṁjana-paripālan-ōdyōga-satata-satya-vrata-dīkshita and Kali-yuga-dōsh-āpahṛita-dharm-ōddharaṇa-nitya-sannaddha. The claim of the Pallava rulers from the fifth century down to the age of the present charter to have up-lifted Dharma above the dōsha of the Kali age seems to suggest that their ideal was to revitalise their Brahmanical faith which had been encroached upon by heretical doctrines like Buddhism.^[1] The donors of both the Rēyūru grant and the present charter are called ‘ devotee of the feet of the lord, the father ’ ; but, while the Rēyūru grant describes Narasiṁhavarman II as a paramabhāgavata (i.e. devotee of the Bhagavat or the god Vishṇu), paramamāhēśvara (i.e. devotee of Mahēśvara or Śiva) and paramabrahmaṇi a (i.e. devote of the god Brahman or devoted to the Brāhmaṇas), his father was a paramamāhēśvara and a paramabrahmaṇya but not a paramabhāgavata according to the present grant.

Another interesting fact that the Rēyūru grant applies the epithet yathāvad-ābhṛi(hṛi)t-āśvamēdh-ady-anēka-kratu-yājin to Paramēśvaravarman I. The present record of Paramēśvaravarman I himself, however, does not credit him with the celebration of the horse-sacrifice. On the other hand, it applies the same epithet to the Pallava family. This shows that the epithet has been wrongly applied in the Rēyūru grant to Paramēśvaravarman I who did not perform the Aśvamēdha till his nineteenth regnal year (i.e. the date of the present grant) and probably never at all.

Lines 10-17 record the grant proper. It is stated that the king made the grant on the occasion of the Ayana, i.e. the Uttarāyana-saṁkrānti (Makara-saṅkrānti) in this case since the month specified in line 23 is Paushya. The donee was the Brāhmaṇa Dēvaśarman who was the son of Dōṇaśarman (Drōṇaśarman ?) and grandson of Svāmiśarman. The donee’s family hailed from the village called Urpuṭūru-grāma and belonged to the Maudgalya gōtra and Āpastamba sūtra. His grandfather is described as an expert in the Vēdas, Vēdāṅgas, Itihāsas and Purāṇas exactly as the grandfather of the donee of the Rēyūru grant.

The gift village was Kubuṇūru situated on the right or southern bank of the river Musaṇa within the Pūmi rāshṭra. The village was made a brahmadēya and endowed with all kinds of exemptions. In the description of the village, there is an expression which seems to read Muvuvaḍya-mārggē which either means ‘on the road leading to Muvuvaḍya’ or ‘ in the subdivision called Muvuvaḍya’. The king’s order was addressed to the inhabitants of the said village which is stated to have been granted for the increase of the longevity and health of the donor. This seems to suggest that the grant was made in connection with the king’s recovery from as illness. The officers were ordered to exempt the gift village from the collection of taxes and other levies while on their tours of collection. The transgressor of the order was liable to physical punishment.

The above section is followed in the document in lines 19-21 by two of the usual imprecatory and benedictory stanzas. Another verse that follows in lines 21-23 says that the executor of the grant was Kuḷavarman who was the son of Nagīº or Tagī-pallava and the ruler of Nandakurra. This stanza is also found in lines 20-21 of the Rēyūru grant in the following modified form : Sōmāditya-suta[ḥ*] śrīmān=Nandakurra-nṛipēśvaraḥ [|*] ājñāptiś=śāsanasy=āsya Rājāditya[ḥ*] pratāpavān [||*]

_____________________________________________

^[1] The Successors of the Sātavahanas, pp. 196-97. See also above. p. 89.