The Indian Analyst

North Indian Inscriptions







List of Maps and Plates


Additions and Corrections



Political History

The Early Silaharas

The Silaharas of North Konkan

The Silaharas of South Konkan

The Silaharas of Kolhapur


Religious Condition

Social Condition

Economic Condition


Architecture and Sculpture

Texts And Translations  

Inscriptions of the Silaharas of North Konkan

Inscriptions of The Silaharas of South Konkan

Inscriptions of The Silaharas of kolhapur


Additional Inscriptions of the Silaharas


A contemporary Yadava Inscription


Other South-Indian Inscriptions 

Volume 1

Volume 2

Volume 3

Vol. 4 - 8

Volume 9

Volume 10

Volume 11

Volume 12

Volume 13

Volume 14

Volume 15

Volume 16

Volume 17

Volume 18

Volume 19

Volume 20

Volume 22
Part 1

Volume 22
Part 2

Volume 23

Volume 24

Volume 26

Volume 27





Annual Reports 1935-1944

Annual Reports 1945- 1947

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 2, Part 2

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 7, Part 3

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 1

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 2

Epigraphica Indica

Epigraphia Indica Volume 3

Indica Volume 4

Epigraphia Indica Volume 6

Epigraphia Indica Volume 7

Epigraphia Indica Volume 8

Epigraphia Indica Volume 27

Epigraphia Indica Volume 29

Epigraphia Indica Volume 30

Epigraphia Indica Volume 31

Epigraphia Indica Volume 32

Paramaras Volume 7, Part 2

Śilāhāras Volume 6, Part 2

Vākāṭakas Volume 5

Early Gupta Inscriptions

Archaeological Links

Archaeological-Survey of India




.. In his commentary on the Yājñavalkya-Smṛiti III, 205, Aparārka discusses the vexed question of the relation of knowledge (jñāna) to action (karman) for liberation (mōksha). Can a householder who leads a pious life, performing all the obligatory religious rites, acquiring the necessary wealth therefor by rightful means and doing all the duties of his āśrama, gain liberation from the cycle of birth and death ? Aparārka states the divergent views on this moot point, supporting them with cogent arguments. He seems to be inclined to the view of the combination of knowledge and action (jnāna-karma-samuchchaya) as he cites passages from Manu, Vasishṭha and Yājñavalkya in support of it, while concluding the discussion. Still, he does not adopt a dogmatic attitude, and leaves it to the people to choose whatever view they may consider just and proper. [1]

..It would be interesting to compare the Aparārka-Ṭīkā with the Mitāksharā, another well-known commentary on the Yājñavalkya-Smṛiti composed almost in the same period. [2] The former is much more detailed than the latter. Its author himself describes it as vipulā (extensive). But it is inferior in merit. Though it quotes extensively from the Smṛitis and the Purāṇas, it does not engage itself in learned discussions with the aid of the of the rules of interpretation laid down in the Pūrva-Mīmāṁsā as the Mitāksharā does. As Dr. Kane says, the AparārkaṬīkā is much inferior to the Mitāksharā in lucid exposition, in dilectic skill, in subtlety of arguments and in the orderly presentation of heterogeneous material. [3]

.. The Aparārka-Ṭīkā is held authoritative in Kāshmīr. It was evidently introduced there by Tejakaṇṭha, who was deputed to the Kāshmīr Court by Aparāditya. It is noteworthy that the commentary contains a lengthy passage from the work of Rājānaka Śitikaṇṭha about the images of the different deities. [4] He was evidently a Kāshmīrian author.

.. Thought the work is ascribed to the Śilāhāra king Aparāditya I and he is described as a learned prince, it was evidently composed by the Paṇḍits of his court and ascribed to him. It gives us a good idea of the vast dharmaśāstra literature extant in the time of that Śilāhāra king.


.. Another Sanskrit work composed in the age of the Śilāhāras is the Śabdārṇavachandrikā, a commentary o n the Śabdārṇava of Guṇanandin, a work of the Jainēndra Vyākaraṇa. The author Sōmadēva Muni tells us at the end of the end of the commentary that he completed it in the Jinālaya (temple of Jina) called Tribhuvanatilaka, which had been constructed by the Mahā- maṇḍalēśvara Gaṇḍarādityadēva at the Mahāsthāna of Ājurikā situated in the famous Kōllāpura-dēśa. Ājurikā is undoubtedly Ājarē, the chief place of the mahāl of that name in the Kolhāpur District. Sōmadēva further tells us that he wrote the work in the Śaka year 1127 (A.D. 1205), the cyclic year being Krōdhana, during the reign of the Śilāhāra king, Rājādhirāja, Parmēśvara, Paramabhaṭṭāraka, Paśchimachakravartī Vīra-Bhōjadēva. [5] He is evidently Bhōja II of the Śilāhāra family of Kolhāpur. The mention of the cyclic year Krōdhana as corresponding to the Śaka year 1127 is correct according to the southern system. Sōmadeva

[1] See तदनयोर्मययोर्यन्न्याय्यं तद्‌ ग्राह्मम्‌ । Apararka, Vol. II, p.. 1034.
[2] Dr. Kane has shown that Aparārka probably knew the Mitāksharā. See H.D., Vol I (second ed.)., pp. 719 f.
[3] Ibid., p. 719.
[4] Aparārka, Vol. 1, p. 571.
[5] See स्वस्ति श्रीकोल्लापुरदेशान्तर्वर्त्याजुरिकामहास्थानयुधिष्ठिरावतारमहा
लये श्रीमत्परमपरमेष्ठिष्रीनेमिनाथश्रीपादद्माराधनबलेन
वादीभवज्व्रांकुषश्रीविषालकिर्तिपंडित्यदेववृत्त्यत: ष्रीमच्छिलाहारकुल- ११२७
तमक्रोधनसवत्सरे स्वस्ति समस्तानचिद्यविद्याचक्रवर्त्तिश्रीपूज्यपादानुरक्तचेतसा श्रीसोमदेवमुनीश्वरेण विरचितेयं शब्दा- णैवचन्द्रिकानाम वृत्तिरिति ॥


<< - 10 Page