South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

second king, Śaṁkaragaṇa, shew that the author was acquainted with, and borrowed or imitated, certain epithets which are found only in some of the Gupta inseriptions.^[1] On the other hand, it is clear that the eulogistic part of this inscription or of some similar Kaṭachchuri grant was known to, and made use of by, the authors of the corresponding portions of the grants ^[2] of the Gurjara Dadda [II.] Praśântarâga of the [Kalachuri] years 380 and 385, and of the [Gujarât] Chalukya Vijayarâja^[3] of the [Kalachuri] year 394. Of the last named grant the first two lines may be said to be identical with the same lines of the present grant, and the description of Vijayarâja in lines 5-8 to a great extent literally agrees with the description of Śaṁkaragaṇa in lines 8-14 of the present inscription.^[4] In the case of the Gurjara grants the agreement is not so close, but about the fact that their author knew and made use of some such Kaṭachchuri grant as the one here edited, there cannot be the slightest doubt. In his opening sentence he too compares the family of the Gurjara kings with the great ocean (mahôdadhi), and in describing that ocean he employs the words vividha, vimala, guṇaratna, udbhâsita, avilaṅghitâvadhi, gâmbhîrya, and the phrase mahâsattvayâtiduravagâhê, which to the reader of the present grant will surely betray their origin. Then, as in the present inscription Kṛishṇarâja is described as from his very birth (â janmana êva) devoted to the service of Śiva, so the eulogist of Dadda makes that chief from his very birth (utpattita êva) worship the sun.. He moreover, just as is the case in the present grant, continues the description of his chief in a series of relative sentences (yêna … yaṁ cha … yasya cha, etc.); and in the clause commencing with yasya cha in line 7 and ending with Vindhyanag-ôpatyakâḥ in line 10, he imitates,[5] and labours to improve on, the relative sentence beginning with yêna cha in line 6 and ending with diśô in line 7 of the present grant So far as I can judge, his plagiarism, if I may call it so, is not without some importance for the history of the Gurjaras. In my opinion, it tends to indicate that the family of these chiefs rose to independence only after the time of the Kaṭachuri Buddharâja.^[6] If Dadda Praśântarâga had been preceded by other the Gurjara kings, a eulogist of his, in drawing up his praśasti, most probably would have taken for his model some older Gurjara grant, and would not have allowed himself to be inspired by a Kaṭachchuri grant.

_____________________________________________________
^[1] See my notes on the translation.
^[2] See Ind. Ant. Vol. XIII. pp. 82 and 88.
^[3] See ibid. Vol. VII. p. 248
^[4] The present inscription shews that in line 7 of Vijayarâja’s grant the intended reading is -nishêvî, not -nirmôchî.
^[5] In both inscriptions the king is compared with an elephant (vanavâraṇa-yûthapa and bhadra-mataṁga). Instead of the epithet ruchira-vaṁśa-śôbhin of the present grant, the author of the Gurjara grant puts sad-vaṁś-âhita-śôbhâ-gaurava, where also the word vaṁśa has the double meaning of ‘ backbone ’ and ‘ lineage.’ The word ruchira, which the imitator here discards, he employs in the same line in ruchira-kîrti-vaśâ-sahâya, ‘ accompanied by his bright fame ’ as the elephant is ‘ by his charming mate.’ In a similar way he treats the following epithet of the present inscription, askhalita-dâna-prasara. The first and last word of this compound suggest to him his askhalita-padaṁ prasarataḥ, and the sense of the whole compound he expresses, in a more elaborate manner, by the compound commencing with avirata-dâna-pravâha. Of his own he adds, that his chief took delight in the lands lying at the foot of the Vindhya mountain.─ As it concerns a point of history, I may perhaps state, here that I differ from those scholars who understand the epithet âkṛishṭa-śatru-nâga-kula-saṁtati in lines 3 and 4 of the Gurjara grant (Ind. Ant. Vol. XIII. p. 82) to mean that Dadda I. conquered some hostile tribe or family of the Nâgas. In my opinion, nâga here means nothing but ‘ snake,’ and the author simply says that Dadda uprooted his enemies as the bird Garuḍa destroys the snakes. The compound is exactly like prîṇit-ârthi-madhukara-kula in line 8 of the same inscription, which everybody would admit to mean that the king (by his liberality) delighted the suppliants as the elephant (by his rutting-juice) does the bees. If the eulogy of Dadda I. does contain any historical allusion, it is furnished, in my opinion, by the epithet Kṛishṇa-hṛiday-âhitâspadaḥ in lines 2 and 3, the word Kṛishṇa of which, in addition to denoting the god Kṛishṇa, my perhaps denote the Kaṭachchuri Kṛishṇarâja, and which therefore may represent Dadda I. as a favourite (or feudatory) of that Kaṭachchuri king ; as the Kaustubha gem is placed on Kṛishṇa’s breast, so Dadda found a place in Kṛishṇarâja’s heart.’ That the epithet Kṛishṇa-hṛiday-âhitâspadaḥ, just like the Śrî-sahajanmâ by which it is preceded, does convey a double meaning, is not at all doubtful ; the only question is whether it might not be taken to mean ‘ he whose actions (âspada = kṛitya) were hostile to the evil-minded.’
^[6] Compare Dr. Fleet’s Dynasties, p. 315.