The Indian Analyst
 

South Indian Inscriptions

 

 

Contents

Introduction

Preface

Contents

List of Plates

Abbreviations

Corrigenda

Images

Introduction

The Discovery of the Vakatakas

Vakataka Chronology

The Home of The Vakatakas

Early Rulers

The Main Branch

The Vatsagulma Branch

Administration

Religion

Society

Literature

Architecture, Sculpture and Painting

Texts And Translations  

Inscriptions of The Main Branch

Inscriptions of The Feudatories of The Main Branch

Inscriptions of The Vatsagulma Branch

Inscriptions of The Ministers And Feudatories of The Vatsagulma Branch

Index

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

Tiruvarur

Darasuram

Konerirajapuram

Tanjavur

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

Epigraphia
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

Pudukkottai

LITERATURE

 

Some other Prakrit verses in the Dhvanyālōka appear to have been taken from the same work, though this has not been explicitly stated by Ānandavardhana.1

... The next writer who mentions Sarvasēna is Kuntaka, the famous author of the Vakrōktijīvita. He classes Sarvasēna with Kālidāsa among writers of the sukumāra-mārga (elegant style).2 Bhōja, the author of the Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa, cites two Prakrit verses, which from their contents appear to have been taken from the Harivijaya. The first of these states why Satyabhāmā alone in the midst of the other wives of Kṛishṇa got enraged by humiliation (when the Pārijāta flowers obtained from heaven were presented by Kṛishṇa to Rukmiṇī). The second verse seems to have been addressed by Kṛishna to Satyabhāmā. Says he, “ If I had appeased you, who had become enraged by (the presentation of) flowers (to Rukmiṇī), by offering the same flowers to you, it would not have been in keeping with either my love for you or my offence against you. (Hence I am honouring you with the gift of the Pārijāta tree itself.)” In his other work Sṛiṅgāraprakāśa also Bhōja cites several verse from the Harivijaya. Thus in the prakāśas xxii-xxiv, which have been published, as many as six verse have been quoted from that kāvya as stated by the editor in the Index of Prakrit verses of those chapters. Several more verses must have been cited in other chapters which are still unpublished.

t>

... Hēmachandra,3 the Jain polymath, has referred to the Harivijaya in several places in his vivṛiti on the Alaṅkārachūḍāmaṇi, which gives us several bits of interesting information. For instance, he tells us that like the Sētubandha, the Harivijaya was throughout written in one metre (viz., Skandhaka) and that the verses in the Galitaka metre found therein were later interpolations. The last verse of each canto contained the word utsāha, just as that in the āśvāsa of the Sētubandha contains anurāga. Its theme, as stated above, was the forcible removal of the Pārijāta tree by subduing Indra for the appeasement of Satyabhāmā. It seems that Kṛishṇa had at first sent Sātyaki as a nisṛishṭārtha-dūta, i.e. as a Commissioner invested with full powers of negotiation. Like other mahākāvyas it contained the description of the city (Dvārakā), the hero (Kṛishṇa), the season spring, sunset, horses, elephants, drinking parties and so forth. Ultimately, Kṛishṇa invaded heaven, vanquished Indra and forced him to part with the celestial tree Pārijāta, which he presented to Satyabhāmā to appease her anger.

... The Harivijaya is probably the earliest Prakrit kāvya known so far.4 It fully conforms to the norm of the mahākāvyas and seems to have served as a model for the Sanskrit and Prakrit kāvyas of Kālidāsa and Pravarasēna II, who flourished in a later age. It seems to have been current in India down to the twelfth century A.C. ; for, Daṇḍin (7th cen.), Ānandavardhana (9th cen.), Kuntaka (10th cen.), Bhōja (11th cen.), Abhinavagupta (11th cen.) and Hēmachandra (12th cen.) either refer to Sarvasēna by name or cite verses referring to incidents in that kāvya. I have not seen references to it in later works and no manuscripts of it are known to exist anywhere.

... Sarvasēna seems to have composed some Prakrit gāthās also. Gaṅgādharabhaṭṭa, whose commentary has been published in the Nirṇayasāgar edition of the Gāthāsaptaśatī, does
____________________

1 For instance the verse sajjeī surahi-māso, etc., which has been cited in more than one place (ibid., pp. 106, 236 etc.) as descriptive of the vernal season, is also probably taken from the Harivijaya, which, as shown below, did contain a description of that season.
2 Cf. सहजसोकुमार्यसुभगानि कालिदासमर्वसेनादीनां काव्यानि लव्यन्ते।Vakroktijivita, p. 71.
3 See Hēmachandra’s Kāvyānuśāsana, ed. by Rasik Lal, pp. 457 f.
4 The Paümachariu of Vimalasūri was, according to a statement in that work, composed in the year 530 after the Nirvāṇa of Mahavīra i.e. in 64 A.C., but this date is regarded as doubtful. Prof. Jacobi places the kāvya ‘ in the third century A.C. or somewhat later.’

<< - 2 Page