South Indian Inscriptions

INCRIPTIONS OF THE KALACHURIS OF TRIPURI

made over to him the monastery of the holy Vaidyanātha, which is called Nauhalēśvara in the next verse. Hridayaśiva placed it in the charge of his disciple Aghōraśiva. As Hridayaśiva was a contemporary of Lakshmanarāja, his spiritual preceptor Chūdāśiva lived in the same period as Lakshmanarāja’s father Yuvarājadēva I. He is, therefore, probably identical with the Śikhāśiva of the Chandrēhē inscription¹ and the Chūdāśiva of the Gurgi inscription,² whose disciple Prabhāvaśiva was invited by Yuvarājadēva I to accept a monastery at Gurgi.

Lakshmanarāja, then, proceeded to conquer the regions in the west and reached the shores of the western ocean where he worshipped Śiva at the well-known temple of Sōmanātha in Kathiāwād, and presented the deity with the effigy of the serpent Kāliya wrought with jewels and gold, which he had obtained from the king of Ōdra (Orissa) after defeating the lord of Kōsala. This statement indicates that the kingdoms of Dakshina Kōsala and Ōdra were at this time probably ruled by the scions of the same family³

Lakshmanrāja was succeeded by his son Śankaragana (III), about whom the present record furnishes no historical information. He was followed by his younger brother Yuvarājadēva II, whose adventure in killing a huge tiger is graphically described in verse 68. As many as five verses are devoted to this king’s description, but they contain mere conventional praise. Verses 71-76 contain a hymn which Yuvarajadeva II is said to have composed in praise of Siva.

The third part of the inscription opens with an enumeration of the taxes in cash or kind, which manufacturers and traders had to pay at the market-place in the town (Bilhāri) for the benefit of the monastery and the support of its occupants. Next comes a verse in praise of Aghōraśiva, the head of the Nauhalēśvara monastery. He is said to have put this praśasti together. As Dr. Kielhorn has already pointed out ‘What is now its first portion from verse 1 to 45 originally was or formed part of an independent praśasti and this original praśasti was renewed and enlarged by the addition of verses 46-86 of the present inscription two or three generations after the composition of the first part’⁴.

The record next mentions the towns Tripurī, Saubhāgyapura, Lavananagara, Durlabhapura, Vimānapura and some others, whose names are lost, in connection with the celebration of a fair in honour of the deity. Finally, there occurs a curious reference to the Sanskrit poet Rājaśēkhara. The present eulogy is said to have deserved praise from the wonder-struck poet Rājaśekhara. Kielhorn who translated the expression vismita-kavi-Rājaśēkhara-stutyā as ‘which would deserve praise (even) from the wonder-struck poet Rājaśēkhara⁵’, evidently took it to mean Rājaśēkhara would have been struck with wonder at this composition if he had been living. The expression can be taken either as instrumental singular meaning ‘(May this composition live to the end of the world) as it has evoked praise from the wonder-struck poet Rājaśékhara’, or as nominative singular conveying the sense, ‘(this composition) which deserves praise from the wonder-struck poet Rājaśēkhara’. In either case we need not suppose that Rājaśēkhara was dead at the time. From his Karpūramañjarī we learn that he was at first called Bālakavi probably on account of his precocious poetic talent. He was patronised by the Gurjara-Pratihāra princes Mahēndrapāla and Mahīpala and afterwards by Kēyūravarsha-
__________________

¹ See above, No. 44, line 6.
² See below, No. 46, line 8.
³ We know that the two countries were ruled by the princes of the Kēsari dynasty later on in the 10th and 11th centuries A. C.
⁴ Ep. Ind., Vol. I, p. 252.
⁵ Ibid., Vol. I, p. 270.