Page images
PDF
EPUB

JOURNAL

OF THE

ASIATIC SOCIETY.

No. II. 1862.

Three Sanskrit Inscriptions: Copies of the Originals, and Prefatory Observations.-By FITZ-EDWARD HALL, ESQUIRE, D. C. L.

The first among the memorials now edited has already appeared in the pages of this Journal;* but in a transcript so unfaithful, as to have concealed all its facts of highest value. Otherwise, it would not, certainly, have been left to the writer to discover the position of the ancient kingdom of Chedi; and, probably, the researches of some other investigator would have identified the insignificant village of Tewar with Tripurí, the Chedian capital.†

* For 1839, pp. 481 - 495. Specimens of the errors_which bestrew the old decipherment-a most careless and unconscientious performance, will be given in foot-notes. Nor is the English translation a translation properly so-called. + Tripurí is mentioned twice ; Chedi, once. The places will be indicated. For Tripurí, in connexion with Rájá Vákpati, alias Munja, of Ujjayiní, see

the note after the next.

At Bhelsá, within the fort, I recently found a fragmentary inscription, built into the outer wall of a modern house, and looking upon one of the streets of the town. Subjoined is all that remains of a record of which perhaps a full half is missing :

* * * * * * * श्रियमयमपि नन्वाश्रिता नाऽश्रिताऽस्य
गेहं मे वेत्रवत्या नियमितजनताक्षोभमस्याऽप्यजखम् ।
तेजोमय्यत्र चोच्चैर्विततमिति विदित्वाऽऽद रेणाऽऽत्मतुल्यं
भाइल्लखामिनामा रविरवतु भुवः स्वामिनं कृष्णराजम् ॥
चेदीनं समरे विजित्य शबरं संहृत्य सिंहाहयं
रालामण्डल।दपाद्यवनिपो भूभ्यां प्रतिष्ठाप्य च ।
देवं द्रष्टुमिहागतो रचितवांस्तोत्रं पवित्र परं
श्रमत्कृष्णन्टपेकं मन्त्रिपदभाक् कौण्डिन्य वाचस्पतिः ॥
सुचिरमियं कृतिरास्तां रुचिरा श्रीमद्गजाङ्कशेयस्य ।
काकूकेन विलिखिता कायस्थ * * * * ॥

The inscription begins with a doxology to Vishņu; to the lotus of his navel; to Brahmá, who originated therefrom; to Brahma's son, Atri; and to the Moon, which emanated from one of Atri's eyes.

From the Moon, by a daughter of the Sun, sprung Bodhana; and from him was born Purúravas, who had to wife Urvas'í and Earth. Among the descendants of Purúravas was Bharata. To him the Haihayas traced their origin; and from these came Kártavírya, the founder of the family of Kalachuri.* To this family belonged the last dynasty that dominated over Chedi.

For want of context, and from other causes, entire certainty as to the drift of this throughout is impossible. But that thus much is asserted, one may be pretty confident. Kaundinya, entitled Váchaspati, was premier of a Rájá Krishna, and dwelt on the Vetravatí. After discomfiting the lord of Chedi, by slaying a S'abara named Sinha,-probably the Chedian generalissimo, he established the district of Rálá, and Rodapádi, which, also, seems to denominate a district. Manifestly in honour of these successes, he repaired to the places where the inscription was set up, and had these lines written in praise of the sun, under the epithet of Bháilla; which divine luminary is invoked to serve as King Krishna's protector. Gajánkus'eya composed the eulogy, and Kákúka copied it. Apparently, Krishna's newly annexed districts were wrested from Chedi. But whether that kingdom reached, previously, as far towards the west, as the banks of the Vetravatí, is undetermined. As for the antiquity of the memorial, it would be unsafe to base any conclusion on its palæography. I am convinced, from inspection of inscriptions nearly contemporary, that archaism of appearance was sometimes studiously affected in these records.

There is no ground to suppose, that the inscription was brought to Bhelsá from a distance. Once displaced from its original position, it must have had— such is the Indian indifference to relics of the past-no value except for the feet and inches of the tablet on which it is engraved; and the vicinity of Bhelsá does not want for stone-quarries. The sun, as Bháilla, was, we see, once an object of worship. At first sight, the word has, certainly, a barbarous aspect ;* and yet it may possibly have been formed, anomalously, from bhá, “light” and the Vaidika root il, defined by the grammarians "to throw :" "the thrower of light." Euphony may have doubled the final consonant. To Bháilla add is'a, and the combination is Bháilles'a. Soften this, and we easily account for Bhelsá. Bháilla, as will be seen a few pages on, at one period gave name to a tract of country comprising twelve districts.

It may now be considered as certain, that Bhelsá was not so called because of its occupation by Bheels. See this Journal, for 1847, p. 745.

Independently of the references in this paper, Bháilla, the divinity, is mentioned in an inscription somewhere in Gwalior, of which I have formerly spoken. Vide p. 7, Supra, second foot-note.

*Or, optionally, it should seem, Kulachuri. In the sixth stanza of the following inscription is Kulachuri; but Kalachuri is implied in the thirteenth stanza. The latter form is read, unmistakably, on the Gopálpur tablet. See, further note d, at p. 517 of the Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. VI.

The tablet just adverted to is said to have been transported from Karanbel, a few miles distant from the spot where it now lies. I examined it on the fifth

[* Might it be the Prákrit termination illa for matup? Vararuchi (iv. 25) gives máláilla for málávat.—EDS.]

Beginning with Yuvaraja, father of Kokalla, and ending with Ajayasinha, heir-apparent, the line of kings recorded in the inscrip

of last January. Gopálpur is a small village on the Nerbudda, about ten miles from Jubulpore. Some twenty or thirty years ago, as I was informed, in an attempt made to remove the tablet, it was broken.

The space occupied by writing,-twenty lines and two-fifths,-measures about a yard and a half by two feet. The inscription is entirely in verse, and it has no date. Its left-hand portion, the smaller, contains few words any longer decipherable; and the right-hand portion is legible only here and there. Still, the fragments which I here annex leave no doubt as to its origin.

Line VI. आसोत् तस्य सहस्रपाणिकिरणैर्वैशः सहस्रार्जुनः ।

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

XI.

[ocr errors]

XV.

"

"

* * * * * * ०कलचुरिकुलस्तम्भमहसः ।

॰कर्णदेवः ।

श्रयशः कर्णदेवेोऽस्य पृथ्वीपतिरभूत् सुतः ।

रराज राजत्रजधर्मराजस्

तस्याऽनुजः श्रजयसिंहदेवः ।

XVI. श्रीमद्गोसलदेवौ ।

जयति तद * ** क्ष्माधरः श्रविजयसिंहदेवन्नृपः ।

यसिः शत्रुषु कालः सूते शुभ्रं यशस्वित्रम् ॥
श्रीसोमराजकृतं राजावलीवर्णन मिति ।

XVII. तस्मादखर्वगुणपर्वत गर्वितोऽन्तः

श्रीमल्हणः ।

,, XVIII. जोगलेति प्रियाऽनूढा तस्याऽसौच् चारुदर्शना ।

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

हृदयानन्दजननो सम्पतिरिव निश्चला ||

* * * * * * गणः किल निजः सम्प्रेषितो यः चितिम् ।
तामुत्कर्षयितुं कृतो हरिगणस्तस्मात् स जज्ञे ध्रुवम् ॥
महादेवीति नाम्नाऽऽसोद् धर्मपत्नी पतिव्रता ।
सुचरिताऽपराऽप्यस्य * * * सहधर्मिणी ।

Here we have the names of Arjuna the thousand-armed, of Kalachuri, Karna, Yasahkarna, Jayasinha, Gosala, and Vijayasinha ; and these names indicate, that the inscription is Chedian, and of nearly the same time with that of the inscription printed at large in the coming pages. Whose concubine madam Jogala was, does not appear. Nor is it known who Harigana and Malhana were. Equally in the dark are we as to the bigamous husband of Mahadeví and of another lady whose name has been obliterated. Finally, a part, at least, of this memorial was composed by one Somarája.

Malhana, I think, is a name that occurs in the Rájataranginí. But I write in the wilderness, with few books about me. For Malhana of Kanauj, see Dr. Aufrecht's account of the Vis'wa-prakás'a in Cat. Cod. Manuscript. Sanserit. &c., p. 187.

Last Christmas I was encamped at Bilahari,-in the Jubulpore district,— which place the common fame of the neighbourhood connects with Rájá Karna. It must once have been a town of some importance. I found there one complete inscription, in the character of twelve or fifteen hundred years ago, but well nigh completely obliterated by time and weather; and two fragments of a second

Of

tion is so well-known, that their names need not be repeated.* their family we are here furnished with a few facts additional to those which I have detailed on former occasions.† Gángeya died at Prayága, or Allahabad ; and we are led to infer, that his wives, amounting, in round numbers, to a hundred, underwent cremation with the mortal remains of their lord.§ Karna built the city of Karnavatí. The consort of Gayákarna, or Gayakarna, was Alhana;

inscription, less ancient, and yet, what from discontinuity and effacement, no longer intelligible. It mentions a Rájá Indra.

* An inedited inscription, much mutilated, which I have very lately examined at Udayapura, in Gwalior, sets forth, that Vákpati,—whom I know to have been the same with Munja,-defeated Yuvarajá, and took possession of Tripurá. Vákpati lived in the tenth century; and a synchronism of some value is thus established. I must, however, choose a time of leisure to enlarge upon its consequences.

But the inscription adverted to settles one point to which I cannot here forego reference. The father of Bhoja of Dhárá was Sindhu, not Sinha ; and he is called younger brother of Vákpati, not elder brother. Vákpati had issue in Vairisinha; and Vairisinha had a son, Harsha. It seems probable, that the accession of Bhoja to the throne was owing to their having pre-deceased him.

At p. 205 of last year's Journal, building on what now turn out to be imperfect and erroneous data regarding the rulers of Málava, where I have spoken of Vákpati as being cousin-german to Bhoja, I ought to have written "first cousin once removed." But my new inscription shows, as has been seen, that he was Bhoja's paternal uncle. Nor was Vákpati's kingdom distinct from that afterwards subject to his nephew. Nor, again, is it now to be surmised, by way of consequence, that Bhoja's sway extended over less than the whole of Malava.

I return to the king Krishna spoken of two notes back. And who was he? Bhoja's grandfather's grandfather, Krishna, or Upendra, long preceded the presumed founder of the last Chedian dynasty, Yuvaraja, who is reported to have been routed by Bhoja's uncle, Vákpati. It seems more likely, that we have here to do with the master of a kingdom intermediate to Chedi and Málava, and which was eventually absorbed by the latter.

Kokalla, of Chedi, son of the Yuvarájá just mentioned, is said to have defeated a Rájá Krishna in the south. A short time ago I expressed the opinion, that this Krishna "was, not impossibly," that ancestor of Bhoja with whom, as my fresh facts admonish, it is impossible to identify him. Future investigation may establish, that he was one with the Krishna of the Bhelsá inscription.

Of Kokalla I further wrote: tr 'Again, the Bhoja whom he is recorded to have vanquished in the west, was, without much question, one of the two kings of Kanauj who bore that appellation." As Vákpati was of the same age with Yuvaraja, we may conclude, that it was Bhoja of Málava, Vákpati's nephew, against whom Kokalla, son of Yuvarája, claims to have been successful. See last year's Journal, p.

See the Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. VI., pp. 499–537 ; and this Journal for 1861, p. 318.

Col. Wilford,-Asiatic Researches, Vol. IX., p. 108,—claiming the authority of a copper-plate grant for what he states, alleges, that Gángeya had the title of Vijayakantaka, and that "he died in a loathsome dungeon." This seems doubtFacts of such a nature would scarcely be spoken of, by an Indian panegyrist, of any one related to the magnate he is engaged in belauding.

ful.

§ See the eleventh stanza of the following inscription.

In a literal translation, the twelfth stanza is as follows: "By whom, Karna, was established, on earth, a realm of Brahma, known as Karṇávatí; the foremost

and that of Vijayasinha was Gosala. The appellations of these two ladies have hitherto been misrepresented.*

A crown-village, Choraláyí, in the pattalá of Sambalá, is transferred by the relique under notice, a legal document. The donor is Gosala, on the part of her son, Ajayasinha, a minor. The donee is a learned Brahman, one Siḍha, son of Chhiktú, son of Súlhana, son of Janárdana.† Six royal functionaries are enumerated in the grant; and the official designations are added of three more whose names are not specified.‡

abode of happiness, a root to the creeper of Vaidika science, a frontlet to the celestial river, a stay of Bráhmans."

The epithet of "celestial river" is usually appropriated to the Ganges. It is given, above, to the Narmadá.

I once suggested, that Karnavatí might have been misread for Karnávalí, and that the latter word might have been corrupted into Karanbel, the vernacular name of some ruins, marking the site of a once extensive city, adjoining Tewar, or Tripurí. Those ruins I have carefully explored. There is nothing to be said of them, further than that they now serve as an inexhaustible stone quarry, and supply countless torsos of the most obscene sculpture that depravity could easily

conceive.

As for the word Karanbel, its first two syllables may well be a corruption of Karṇa. The ending bel is not unknown to India, in designations of places : witness Bábúbel and Chaubebel, in the district of Ghazeepore. Sir H. M. Elliot thinks, that "it may possibly be connected with the Mongol balu, a city,' as in Khán-balu, the city of the Khán." Appendix to the Arabs in Sind, p. 214,

foot-note.

Karnávalí would have softened into Karnautí, or, more likely, into Karnaulí; Karnavatí into Karnautí.

* In the forms Arhana and Gásala.

+ It is set forth, that he was of the gotra of Sávarni, and that to this gotra appertain the Bhárgana, Chyavana, Apnavána, Aurva, and Jámadagnya praThere is a singular mistake here; for the pravaras of the Sávarnyas are the Bhargava, Vaitahavya, and Savetasa.

caras.

A gotra is a family sprung from one of a certain number of Rishis, and from him denominated. Pravaras appear to be names of the families of certain persons from whom the founders of gotras were descended, and of the families of the founders themselves.

We read in the A's'waláyana-kalpa-sútra : QFA1AQ1ssåQ17 gemìà gam:

Ż / Nárayana Gárgya, As'walayana's commentator, says: वार्षेयः प्रवर इति पर्यायौ च्याभ्यां ऋषिवंशनामधेयमता चार्ष्टिषेणादयः शब्दा उच्यन्ते । Baudháyana asserts, in his Kalpa-sitra : विश्वामित्रो जमदग्निर्भरद्वाजोऽथ गौतमः चत्रिर्वसिष्टः कश्यप इत्येते सप्तर्षयोऽगस्त्याष्टमानां यदपत्यं तद् गोत्रमित्युच्यते ।

The explanation of pravara, on which Professor Max Müller's view of the expression is based, seems too artificial to demand acceptance, unless it turns out to be strongly corroborated by other Bráhmanical authority. See A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, &c., first edition, p. 386.

Sáiváchárya Bhattáraka was mahá-mantrin, Vidya-deva, rája-guru ; Yajnadhara, maha-purohita; Kíkí Thakkura, dharma-pradhána; Vatsarája,—a pluralist, happy, or unhappy,-mahákshapaṭalika, mahá-pradhána, artha-lekhin, and das'a-múlika; and Purushottama, mahá sándhi-vigrahika.

« PreviousContinue »