EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
Of the localities mentioned in the inscription I have been able to identify the following ones
The village of Dêülavâḍâ on the mountain Arbuda is the Dilwara of the Indian Atlas, situated
lat 24º 36′ N. ; long. 72º 43′ E. The village of Umbaraṇîkî is the Umarni of the map,
7 miles south-south-east of Dilwara. The village of Dhaülî is Dhauli, 8½ miles west-south-west
of Dilwara. The great tîttha of Muṇḍasthala is perhaps identical with the Murthala of the
map, 8½ miles south-east of Dilwara. The village of Gaḍâhaḍa may be identified with the
Gadara of the map, 11 miles south-south-west of Dilwara, supposing Gadara to stand for
Gaḍâra (Gaḍâḍa). Sâhilavâḍâ is Selwara, 8½ miles west-north-west of Dilwara. Among the
villages expressly stated to be in the vicinity of the mountain Arbuda, Âbuya is the Abu of the
map, 1½ miles south-west of Dilwara. Ûtarachha is Utraj, 5½ miles north-east of Dilwara.
Sihara is Ser, 8 miles north-east of Dilwara. Hêṭhaüñjî is Hetamji, 2 miles south of Dilwara.
Kôṭaḍî may be the Kotra of the map, 7 miles east of Dilwara. Sâla possibly is identical
with Salgaon, 1 miles east-south-east of Dilwara. Ôrâsâ bears a certain resemblance to Oria,
the name of a village 3 miles north-east of Dilwara, although an identification of the two would
be possible only by assuming the form of the name, as given in the map, to be incorrect.
The last two lines of the inscription, which, as stated above, are a later addition, contain
two Sanskṛit verses in praise of Mount Âbû by Nayachandrasûri, a descendant of the holy
ṛishi Kṛishṇa, and a short notice in the vernacular, recording the fact that some pilgrim
visited the sanctuary to worship there.[1]
The shorter inscription Nos. III. XXXII., all of which are edited now for the first time,[2]
are written in Nâgarî characters of the Jaina type and composed in the Sanskṛit language,
although proper names mostly appear in their Prâkṛit form. Once, in Chaṁḍapa in No. IV.
l. 1, ḍa shows the peculiar shape given in Bühler’s Indische Palæographie in Plate V. col. XVI.
l. 22, from an inscription of Bhîmadêva I.
No. III., which is engraved on the lintel of the doorway to the main shrine, records that
Têjapâla caused to be made the great shrine (mahâtîrtha) of the holy Nêminâtha in this
Lûṇavasahikâ for the religious merit of his son Lûṇasiha ‘ on Monday, the third day of the
bright half of Phâguṇa (Phâlguna) in the year 1287 of king Vikrama.’ According to
Professor Kielhorn, who kindly calculated this and the following dates for me, the date is
incorrect for both V. 1287 expired and V. 1287 current. It would correspond, for V. 1287
expired, to Friday, 7th February A.D. 1231, and for V. 1287 current, to Sunday, 17th February
A.D. 1230.
The inscriptions Nos. IV.-XXXII. prove that Têjaḥpâla in the following years also did not
cease to enlarge and embellish the sanctuary which he had created. They are engraved on the
lintels of several cell shrines in the corridor of the temple and record the erection of those shrines,
or of images of Jinas and tîrthakaras, by Têjaḥpâla for the religious merit of various members
of his family.
Of general interest are the titles occurring in these inscriptions. The one most frequently
used is mahaṁº, the abbreviated form of mahanta. It is borne by Têjaḥpâla and most of the
members of his family, both men and women. But in the pedigrees contained in Nos. XXIV.
and XXVI.-XXXI. Têjaḥpâla’s ancestors Chaṇḍapa and Chaṇḍaprasâda, his father Aśvarâja or
Âsarâja, and his mother Kumâradêvî are given the title of ṭhaº, which stands for ṭhakkura,
whereas Sôma, the son of Chaṇḍaprasâda and father of Aśvarâja, is constantly styled mahaṁº.[3]
This clearly shows that there must have been some distinction between the two titles, though the
difference cannot have been very great, as Chaṇḍapa and Aśvarâja are called also mahaṁº in
_________________________________________________________
[1] I do not fully understand this sentence. Records like this are not infrequent on Mount Âbû.
[2] Wilson has noticed them only in a general way in the Asiatic Researches, Vol. XVI. p. 310, No. XX.
[3] The pedigree in No. II. l. 3 f. shows the same distinction.
|