________________
122
BẠHAT-KATHAKOŚA.
As the reading stands, the name of the contemporary king would be Vinayakapāla or even Vinayapāla, if we induce ourselves to suppose that the usual k-suffix is added to ādi. We have to see whether there is available any such name of a ruling prince round about our Vardhamanapura and about A. D. 931-32. There is some difference of opinion about the relation between Mahipala and Vināyakapāla of the Gurjara-Pratihāra dynasty'; but this much is certain that Vināyakapāla was in possession of the capital Kanauj in A. D. 931. We have a grant of his issued from Mahodaya (Kanauj) dated Samyat 988, only one year earlier than the composition of the Kathākośa. Then there are the Haddaļa copper-plates, dated Saka 836, of the Cāpa-mahāsāmantādhipati, Dharaņi. Varāha, a feudatory of the Rājādhiraja Mahipāladeva, issued from Vardhamāna. Pratihāra empire was a big one extending from the Kathiawar to the borders of Bihar; and the "Government was more or less feudal in nature, and its rapid dissolution was due to the centrifugal tendency' which is still observable among the Rajputs." The above records make it clear that the Vardhamānapura was included in the Pratihāra empire a few years early and there was the king Vināyakapāla in A. D. 931. I feel convinced that Harişeņa is referring to Vināyakapāla, the suzerain king, and not to any local chief of Vardhamānapura; and this is perhaps implied by the adjective S'akropamānake. There is, however, one difficulty which needs some explanation. The text would give the name Vinayapāla or Vinayakapāla, while the king's name is Vināyakapāla. It is true that our author is in the habit of using l:-suffix; but here, I think, in all probability the original reading might have been Vināyādikapālasya (apparently meaningless, if one is not aware of the name of the king) which gives us the name Vināyakapāla. It is quite likely that Vināyādi. was easily corrected into Vinayādi- by some copyist who could not make out anything from Vināyādi- and who thought that his was a meaningful improvement of vināya into vinaya. Our author is in the habit of such division of words by inserting ādi etc., as I have shown above, in prases like paryādivrājikā.
Unfortunately no other work of Harişeņa has come to light; so there is no possibility, for the present, of supplementing and checking the above information. To conclude, Harişeņa belonged to Punnātasamgha; he composed his Kathäkośa near about Wadhawan in Kathiawar; it was finished in Saka 853, Samvat 989 or A. D. 931-32 during the Khara Samvatsara; and the contemporary sovereign king was Vināyakapāla of the Gurjara-Pratihāra dynasty of Kanauj.
1
D. R. Bhandarkar: A List of Inscriptions of Northern India, Epigraphia Indica, vols. XIX to XXIII, No. 53 of Saṁvat 988, No. 61. of Samvat 1003, No. 68 of Samvat, 1011, No. 1086 of Saka 836 (Haddālā copper-plates ); see also his paper Gurjaras', Bombay Branch R. A. S. XXI, pp. 414£; Barnett: Antiquities of India pp. 62, 67; Ray: The Dynastic History of Northern India, pp. 571-582 where all the details are worked out and the basic records are fully summarised; Banerji: Prehistoric, Ancient and Hindu India, pp. 234, 236; H. C. Ray Chaudhari: On the Emperor Mahipāla of the Pratihāra Dynasty, Indian Culture, VII, 2.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
