|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
INSCRIPTIONS OF THE PARAMARAS OF MALWA UJJAIN GRANT OF VĀKPATIRĀJADEVA tendency to use parasavarṇa instead of the sign for anusvāra, see, e.g., śaśāṅka and chañchat, both in 1. 1. śrīkaṇṭha in 1. 2, samva(ba)ddha in 1.9 and sāmānyō’yandharmma- in 1. 25, illustrating the use of all class-nasals. This tendency, however, has gone so far as to put a class nasal wrongly in some instances, e.g., in śrēyānsi, 1. 2, samvat, 1. 28, and samviditaṁ and samvatsarē, both in 1. 11. On the other hand, anusvāra wrongly occurs at the end of a hemistich in phalaṁ in v. 3 (1. 21) and at the end of a sentence in 1. 19. To note a scribal error, the word shaṭtṛiṁśat in 1. 11 is written as shaṭtruṁśat. In place of the sign for visarga we have that of upadhmanīya in two instances in 11. 5 and 27 ; the sign for avagraha is employed once correctly in 1. 16, to denote the merging of initial a into the preceding ē, but wrongly in vuddhvā-‘smat, 1. 19. The spelling Ujjayanyāṁ in 1.14 is interesting, as in the preceding record. Orthographically, there is nothing worth noting, except that (1) b is always denoted by the sign for v, and (2) the consonant following r is not unoften doubled. ...The inscription is one of the Mahārājā, the illustrious Paramabhaṭṭāraka, Mahārājādhirāja and Paramēśvara Vākpatirājadēvā, alias Amōghavarsha, who belonged to the Paramāra ruling house of Mālwā ; and its preliminary portion consisting of the maṅgala-ślōkas and the mention of the genealogy is literally identical with that of the Dharampurī grant that immediately precedes and was written only five years earlier, in V.S 1031. Thus the genealogical portion teaches us nothing new. The only noteworthy difference, however, is in regard to the object of the grant and the occasion of making it. The object of the present charter is to record, in terms which call for no remarks, the donation of the village of Sēmbalapura, included in the bhukti of the Mahā- sādhanika Mahāïka and connected with the Tiṇisapadra-dvādaśaka. ... The gift was made by Vākpatirāja from his stay at Bhagavatpura, at the request of Āsinī, the wife of the Mahāsādhanika Mahāïka, on, as expressed in words only, the full-moon day of Kārttika, on the occasion of a lunar eclipse in the (Vikrama) Saṁvat 1036, the corresponding Christian day being the 26th October, 980,[1] and it was to provide for the worship of Bhaṭṭārikā, the goddess Bhaṭṭēśvarī at Ujjayanī, the modern Ujjain, for the repairs of the temple.
...While editing the grant, Kielhorn has suggested that “as Bhaṭṭārikā is an epithet of Durgā, Bhaṭṭēśvarī seems to have been one of the local names of that deity”.[2] In view of these general remarks made by Kielhorn, the deity referred to here appears to be none else than the goddess now known in the locality by the name of Hara-siddhi, whose image is enshrined there in a temple which, though not very old, occupies almost the same high regard as Mahākāla, not only among the public of Ujjain but also in the surrounding region. For exposition of the phrase referring to the repairs to the temple, my note appended to the corresponding portion of the text may be seen.
...The expression Mahāsādhanika is used in Mērutuṅga’s Prabandhachintāmaṇi in the sense
of a military governor ;[3] and Sādhanika occurs in the Māndhātā inscription of V.S. 1331 of Jayavarman II ; and according to Dr. D.C. Sircar, it is the same as Prakrit Sāhaniā, meaning the commander of an army.[4] But from the historical point of view it may be noted here that VākpatiMuñja made the grant from his stay at Bhagavatpura ; and, if our identification of this place with
the village of Bhagōr which is on the Chambal, as shown below, be correct, incidentally it may be
pointed out that this river of ancient fame is still regarded very sacred throughout Mālwā ;[5] and
the custom of taking bath in its holy waters before making gifts to Brāhmaṇas on the full-moon
day of Kārttika, as also happens to be the date of the present inscription, is taken to be most
meritorious. The proposed identification of Bhagavatpura with the modern Bhagōr and of the [1] This equivalent was given by Kielhorn when he edited the inscription in the Ind. Ant., Vol. XIV, p. 159.
But while publishing his article, the editor of the journal remarked in f.n. 2 of the same page that “this
date, when there was an eclipse of the moon, answers by the northern reckoning, to the full moon of
Kārttika of V.S. 1037, which is one year later than the date recorded in the grant, and for full moon of
Kārttika of V.S. 1036 the equivalent date would be Tuesday, the 6th November, 979 A.C., when also there
was an eclipse of the moon.” Kielhorn later on accepted this statement in the Ind. Ant., Vol. XIX, p. 23
No. 4.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|