South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

ullaṅghana are generally equivalent to ati-kram and atikrama─ in fact, I believe our author to have used jyêshṭhôllaṅghana in actual imitation of the expression jyêshṭhâtikrama which occurs in the passage from the Kâdamabarî quoted in my notes─ and may well convey the various meaning of the latter.^[1] Nor would the circumstance that Dhôra’s action is compared with a certain proceeding of the moon be at all calculated to enlighten us on what the author meant exactly to express by the word ullaṅghana, because, in accordance with the very nature of the figure of ślêsha, that word might denote one thing with regard to the moon, and something quite different in the case of Dhôra. The question, therefore, whether Dhôra immediately succeeded his father, or superseded his eldest brother after the latter had ascended the throne, cannot in my opinion be answered from a consideration of the words under discussion.

The praśasti which is spoken of in the above, and of which a full translation will be given below, is followed in line 38 of the plates by another, very common verse :─

(V. 21.) “ Having seen that this life, unstable like wind and lightning, is void of substance, he (Gôvindarâja) has devised this gift to a Brâhmaṇ, most meritorious on account of a donation of land.”

And in the prose passage which follows this verse, the king, here called Prabhûtavarsha (l. 40) and described as already stated above, in the usual terms issues an order to the Râshṭrapatis and other official, to the effect that, while in residence at Mayûrakhaṇḍî (l. 42), on the occasion of a solar eclipse on a date to be given below, he granted the village of Rattajjuṇa (or Rattajuṇa, ll. 45 and 49), situated in the Râsiyana bhukti, to Paramêśvarabhaṭṭa─ a son of Chandiyamma-Gahiyasâhasa,^[2] and son’s of Nâgaiyyabhaṭṭa who dwelt at Tigavi (l 43), was a member of the community of Trivêdins (of students of the three Vêdas) of that place, and a student of the Taittirîya Vêda, and belonged to the Bhâradvâja gôtra─ for the purpose of keeping up the so-called five great sacrifices.

The boundaries of the village of Rattajjuṇa (or Rattajuṇa) were (l. 45) : on the east, the river Sinhâ ; on the south, Vavulâlâ ; on the west, Miriyaṭhâṇa ; and on the north, Varaha-grâma, ‘ the village of Varaha.’ And regarding the village it is further stated that it was (the village) of certain Brâhmaṇs─ the chief of whom were Anantavishṇubhaṭṭa, Viṭṭhuduvê[jha ?],^[3] Gôindamma-shaḍaṅgavid, Savvaibhaṭṭa, Chandaḍibhaṭṭa, Kuṇṭhanâgaibhaṭṭa, Mâdhavairiyappu, Viṭṭhapu, Dêvaṇaiyyabhaṭṭa, Rêyaiyyabhaṭṭa, etc.,─ associated with the forty Mahâjanas.^[4] This latter remark I can only understand to mean that the people mentioned were settled at the village.

__________________________________________________
^[1] From my first note on the translation of verse 5 it will be seen that the commentator of the Nirukta uses ati-kram with reference to the action of a younger brother who had himself crowed to the entire exclusion of his eldest brother from the succession. But atikrama in jyêshṭh-âtikrama quoted ibid. from the Kâdambarî is understood by the commentator merely to mean ‘ the transgression of the commands ’ (nirdêś-ôllaṅghana) of an eldest brother. Similarly, atikrama is explained by âjñ-âtikrama in the commentary on Yâjñavalkya II. 232 ; and in Manu, III. 63, brâhmaṇ-âtikrama is translated by ‘ violence to Brahmans ’ and ‘ irreverence to Brâhmaṇas,’ while the different commentators on Manu paraphrase atikrama here by adhikshêp-âdi, tiraskâr-âdi, and apûjana.
^[2] Gahiyasâhasa apparently is equivalent to ghaisâsa which we have in the names Prabhâkara-ghaisâsa and Vâsiyaṇa-ghaisâsa, above, Vol. III. p. 216. l. 11 of the text, and in other names, e.g. in Ind. Ant. Vol. VII. p. 305, and Vol. XIV. pp. 71 and 72. Ghaisâsa is a family name now found among Chitpâvan Brâhmaṇs ; see Dr. Bhandarkar’s Early History of the Dekkan. p. 124.
^[3] The word affixed to the next name, shaḍaṅgavid, ‘ knowing the six Vêdâṅgas,’ shews that the word affixed to the name Viṭṭhu most probably is some equivalent of the Sanskṛit dvivêda or dvivêdin, ‘ a student of two Vêdas ;’ but I know no rule by which either could become duvêjha. In the Waṇî grant, Ind. Ant. Vol. XI. p. 159, l. 39, we have duvêdi- for dvivêdi-, and elsewhere (ibid. Vol. XIV. P. 71, ll. 1 and 2) occur dvêdi and duvê. The last might suggest Viṭṭhu-duvê, but I do not see my way to connect the akshara jha (if it is really correct). with the following proper name which, standing for Gôyindamma, Gôvindamma (Gôvindappa), seems unobjectionable.
^[4] Above, Vol. V. p. 10. Note 2, Dr. Fleet has stated that the Mahâjanas of a village were the collective body of the Brâhmaṇs of the village. I cannot reconcile this statement with the circumstance that the present inscription speaks of the Brâhmaṇs of the village as associated with (or accompanied by) the forty Mahâjanas.