________________
No: 13.1
PARTABGARH INSCRIPTION OF KING MAHENDRA-PALA II.
177
The meaning of sādhara (Ul. 26 and 32) is not clear: it may mean with the adjacent grounds' or may be an abbreviation of sūdhārana (common). Vaha (1. 32) is the common highway and kachchha (11. 26 and 28) is a field bordering on a stream.
As regards orthography, it may be noted that v is used for b throughout and for n in some instances : punya (1. 11, twice), hiranya (11. 13 and 24), faranga (1 17) and grihnāti (1. 30). Dental is used for the palatal in ajñāsravana (1. 12), and fadritan (1. 18) is an example of the converse. Consonants are mostly doubled after r, but the necessary doubling is not shown in prðtārita (1. 15), patatrinah (1. 16) and achchhetā (1. 35). The doubling of before r is seen in puttra (Il. 6 and 8), pittroh (1. 11) and "hitattrio (L 13), but not everywhere (e.g., putra in 11. 5, 6, 7).at the end of a word is not joined generally to the next word (11. 20, 21, 22, 29). The anusvāra is used for the appropriate nasal in kähinkyāṁ gaṁgäyün (1. 11), lingita (1. 16), dangajo (1. 17), ghorta (1. 23), likhyantë (1. 28), kshētrāmtaritam (1. 29), bhavantu (1.1), chimtā (1. 18), tanttra (1. 20); it is wrongly replaced by m in param-thao (1. 7) and is redundant in Omānānnvaya!(1. 15) and chinntya (1. 23). Of the class-nasals, is frequently used (11. 15, 22, etc.), once wrongly for fi (pancha, l. 26) ; si occurs in 11. 15 and 19 and once wrongly in varisa (1.25); and A in 1. 16. Omissions of visarga (11. 4, 5, etc.), ita redundant use (11. 20, 21, 30), and instances of letters (11. 10, 27, 30, 31) and particles (11. 23, 18) left out are specified in the footnotes. There are no symbols for avagraha, jihvāmuliya or upadhmāniya. The necessary punctuation marks are omitted in some places (11. 2, 3, etc.), and there are redundant lines (11.1, 8, etc.) in others. Other mistakes are pointed out at the proper places.
All the grants recorded in the inscription are in favour of shrines attached to the monastery of Hari-Rishisvara, who originally belonged to Daśa pura (1. 12). Under its management were the shrines of Vata-yakshini Dēvi (11. 12, 33), Indrāditya-dēva or Indrarajaditya-dēva (1l. 23, 28) and Trailokya-mohana-dēva (1. 33), which were situated at the village of Ghöntă-varshike, where there was also a temple dedicated to Nityapramudita-dēva (1. 23). Chief among the deities was Indrāditya-deva, who is spoken of as “the deity) of Ghontā-varshiks" (1. 28), while Trailokya-mohana-děva is spoken of as " (enshrined) within the grounds of Indrăditya-dēva" (1. 31). This pre-eminence is borne out by the verses (II. 1-2) in praise of the sun-god (Indraditya-dēva), which procede those (11. 3-4) extolling Durgā (Vatayakshini Dēvi), who is the donee proper of the first grant.
The occasion of the grant of a village to Vata-yakshipi Dovt by the king of Mahodaya in Samvat 1003 was used by the authorities of the monastery for the purpose of consolidating on one stone all the grants in favour of one or other of the temples attached to it. Such consolidation of grants belonging to one institution, but issued at different periode, is not rare in Rajpatánā. We have an instance of it in the Vasishtha temple inscription at Mount Abů.
The inscription is naturally divided into four parts:
I. A grant of a village in favour of Vata-yakshipi Devi, issued by Maharaja Mahëndrapala-Dēva II. of Mahodaya (Kanauj), dated Sanyat 1003, or A.D. 946 (Ul. 1-14).
II. A grant of a village, eto, in favour of Indråditya-dova by Madhava, the provincial governor of Ujjain (under the same king), at the request of Chahamina Indra-raja, a feudatory chief, without date (11. 14-27).
III. A grant of a field in favour of Indrarajaditya-doya by Bhartri-patta, son of Khommans, dated Samvat 999, or A.D. 942 (11. 27-31).
IV. Minor grants to different deities by different persona, undated (11. 31-85).
Ind. Ant., Vol. II, p. 266.
2
B
