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




as sni for sarvanāman, [1] and syi for saṅkhyā, [2] and has tried to abridge the wording of Dēvanandin’s sūtras still further. [3] Though Guṇanandin made several additions to the Jainēndra Vyākaraṇa, it is known as primarily the work of Dēvanandin. [4]

..Somadēva’s commentary is on this larger recension of the Jainēndra Vyākaraṇa prepared by Guṇanandin. It is called Laghuvṛitti (or the Smaller Commentary). It explains the sūtras briefly and does not enter into learned discussions like the earlier Mahāvṛitti of Abhayanandin. Like the latter, it gives here and there new illustrations for the rules in the Sūtras which are interesting from the historical and social point of view. [5] Otherwise, there is nothing remarkable about this commentary. It is quite lucid and serves well the need of a beginner. [6]


.. The Silahāras of Kolhāpur and their Sāmantas gave liberal patronage to Kannaḍa authors who flourished in that period. One of those whose work has come down to us is Karṇapārya, the author of the Kannaḍa work Nēminātha-purāṇa. He flourished in the reign of the Śilāhāra king Vijayāditya. He has eulogised him and his father Gaṇḍarāditya. One event which he mentions in connection with Vijayāditya may have some historical significance. Vijayāditya is said to have recued his janma-bhūmi on the Gōmantaśailāgra and adorned it himself. As we have seen above, the Śilāhāras of Kolhāpur seem to have hailed from Gōmantha in the Shimogā District of the Karnāṭaka State. Their capital Chandragupti was situated on the top of the hill. Vijayāditya may have raided the territory and occupied the native country of his forefathers. Karṇapārya mentions also Pōnnaladēvī, the agramahishī of Vijayaditya.

.. Karṇapārya appears to have written his work in the temple of Chandraprabha, called Tribhuvanatilaka at Herle near Hātakaṇagale. This temple is different from that at Ājurikā, though it bears the same name. It was presided over then by the Jaina Muni Bālachandra Rāddhānta of Kolhāpur. Karṇapārya mentions also Śubhachandra, who was equally famous and learned. These Jaina Munis are mentioned also in the inscriptions at Śravaṇa Beḷgoḷ.

[1] Sabdārṇavachandrikā, I, 1, 40.
[2] Ibid., I, I, 33.
[3] Compare निरेकाजनाड: । (I, 1, 22) of Dēvanandin with न्यजनाड: । (I, 1, 23) of Guṇanandin.
[4] See the illustrations एकमुनि जैनेन्द्रम् | in Sōmadēva’s commentary on I, 4, 107, and देवोपज्ञमनेकशेषव्याकरणम् in that on I, 4, 114.
[5] See e.g. the illustrations क्षीरपाणा आंन्ध्रा: । सौवीरपाण द्राविडा: । सुरापाणा: प्राच्या: । in the commentary on V,
4, 110. Sauvīra means sour gruel. The Mahāvṛitti on V, 4, 93 gives reading द्रमिणा: instead of द्राविडा:.
[6] While editing the Terdāḷ inscription dated Śaka 1045 (A.D.1123-44) (Ind. Ant., Vol. XIV, pp. 14 f.), K.B. Pathak put forward the suggestion that Śrutakīrti Traividya, the disciple of Māghanandi-Saiddhāntika of the Rūpanārāyaṇa temple at Kolhāpur, was identical with the homonymous author of the kāvya Rāghavapāṇḍavīya mentioned by the Kannaḍa poet Abhinava-Pampa in his Pampa-Rāmāyaṇa, and that he was the same as the poet Dhanañjaya known as the author of that kāvya (also known as Dvisandhāna). This view has been adopted by Winternitz, Keith and S.K. De in their histories of Sanskrit literature, but it has been disproved by A. Venkatasubbaiah on cogent grounds [J.B.B.R.A.S., Vol. III (New Series), pp.134 f.]. Śrutakīrti Traividya of the Rūpanārāyaṇa temple was different from his namesake praised by Abhinava-Pampa because their guru-paramparās are not identical. Secondly, Dhanañjaya, the author of the extant Rāghavapāṇḍavīya (alias Dvisandhāna) kāvya cannot be identified with either of them as he flouished much earlier, in circa A.D. 750-800. (See my Literary and Historical Studies in Indology, pp. 24 f). In fact, it is not certain that Śrutakīrti Traividya wrote a kāvya of the name Rāghavapāṇḍaviya at all. The only evidence for it is furnished by two verses cited in his praise from the Pampa-Rāmāyaṇa in an inscription at Śravaṇa Beḷgoḷ; but they appear to have been wrongly cited there. If he had written a kāvya of such a type, he would have certainly found mention in the Kannada kāvya Nēminātha-purāṇa composed at Kolhāpur in the same age. See below.


<< - 12 Page