________________
No. 25.]
VASANTGADH INSCRIPTION OF VARMALATA.
189
ri stands for ri in kriya°, 1. 3; lastly, t has at least twice been doubled in conjunction with a following , in orätt , 1.2, and Omáttrai', 1. 4.
The inscription opens with two verses, the first invoking the blessings of Durgå and the second of Kshēmáry, who is ordinarily supposed to be a form of Durga, and who here, in particular, is to be identified with Khimel mítá, outside whose temple the inscription stone was lying before it was removed to Sirohi, and of which it originally formed part. Verse 3 speaks of a king named Varmal&ta, on whom the next verse bestows nothing but conventional praise, comparing him to a sorcerer, as pointed out by Prof. Kielhorn. Verse 5 informs us that Varmaláta had a feudatory of the name of Vajrabhata-Satyasraya, who was devoted to the worship of meta, i.e. doubtless Kohēmarya, and able to guard the son of Himavat,'' i.e. Mount Abů. His son was Rajjila (v. 6), who behaved like Vaiśravaņa, i.e. Kubêra, the god of riches, in Vata, by lavishing wealth on Brâhmaņas, personages deserving hospitality, subordinates, and men skilled in arts (v. 7). While this chief (rijan) was governing, the temple of the goddess (Kshêmårya) was caused to be made by the goshthi: at Vatakarasthåna (v. 8). The kárúpuka* selected by the gøshthi to see this work through was Satyadêva, the son of Pitamaha, who was & merchant by birth (v. 9). Then follows & verse expressing a wish for the endurance of the temple as long as the mountain Meru, the rivers, the sun and the moon last. Tben follows the verse which contains the date. The language of it, however, to quote Prof. Kielhorn, is curiously ungrammatical.' Making allowance for the solecisms, the year intended appears to be 682. As almost all the dates of the inscriptions found in Málwå and Rajputânâ, the era of which is not specified and which are capable of being verified, have been shown to belong to the Vikrama ers, our date may be taken to be a Vikrama year, and may, therefore, be supposed to be equivalent to A.D. 625. It was in this year, as verse 11 informs us, that the temple of máte was erected. The prasasti was composed by the Brahmana Dhurtarási, the son of Divákara, and incised by Nagamundin (v. 12). Then follows a list of the individual members of the gôshthi who bailt the temple, their names occupying lines 13-17. Of these, three deserve some notice. The first is that of the only woman who was a member of the goshthi. Her name is Baţå, and she is spoken of as a courtezan (attached to the temple) of Sri-mátú, i.e. undoubtedly the
In the verse the words Kshêmáryya Kshếmakart occur, of which the latter is taken by Prof. Kielhorn to be the name of the goddess. And this appears no doubt to be supported by the fact that Kshēmakari or Kshēmarkari is actually the name of a goddess. But then the reinsining word Kahemaryyd, which cannot be an adjective, remains unexplained. The final aryya, which is the Sanskrit equivalent of ai, mother, frequently applied to goddesses, shows that Kshēmaryya is the name intended. Moreover, Kshema is as much a name for Durgk as Kahēmakari.
In addition to the verse referred to (vir., above Vol. I. p. 234, verse 5) by Prof. Kielhorn in support of Mount Aba (Arbuda) being called "son of Himayat," it may be mentioned that, in the Arbuda-mahatmya also, a copy of which exists in the Pustaka prakásá at Jodhpur, Arbuda has been spoken of as a son of Himalaya and as being put by the latter at the service of the sage Vasishtha to fill up a deep wide chasm, into which his cow had fallen.
The word goshthi no doubt signifies, by itself, a panel or committee entrusted with the management of the religious endowments, as was first pointed out by Prof. Bühler (above, Vol. I. p. 190, n. 50), though in compound words, such as pandita-góshtht, pana-gbokthi, and so forth, it has the general sense of "sn assembly."
The proper sense of this word was first shown by Prof. Kielhorn (Ind. Ant. Vol. XIX. p. 62, n. 53). This meaning was not known to me when I edited the Eklingji inscription, where I have wrongly trauslated the word by " those who caused the temple to be constructed” (Jour. Bo. As. Soc. Vol. XXII. Pp. 152-3) instead of " persons appointed to look after the construction of the temple."
The inscription says that the temple of Kshêmåryd was built by the goshthi of Vata or Vatakara, i.e. Vantgadh, and that Båtd was one of the members of this goshtit. But, as we have seen, was a courtezan of the temple of Kshemarys, and she could only acquire this position after, and not before, the erection of the temple. Nobody would appoint s courtezan to a temple to do the duties of dancing and singing before the deity, before it was constructed, and much less would she be raised to such a dignified position as the membership of the goshhe prior to the actual building of the temple itself. I am, therefore, somewhat inclined to think that the temple was not built, but rebuilt, by the goshin, and that the word kdrita in verse 8 bas to be taken in the latter souse, Instances of a similar use are not wanting.
