________________
NO. 9.] THE BEZWADA PILLAR INSCRIPTION OF YUDDHAMALLA.
153
less per line, so that the last, or the little, Akkara (Alpakkara) has only three feet per line. The term Madhyakkara properly belongs to the third Akkara, which has five feet per line, and the metre of the present inscription is really the Kanarese Dore-Akkara, since each of its lines consists of two equal parts, composed of two Indra (Kanarese Vishnu) and one Sürya (Kanarese Aja) gana each.
The inscription consists of five complete verses, a fragment of a sixth verse and what appears to be a short prose passage. The first verse is an eulogy of king Yuddhamalla, who is described as lord of the Chalukyan kingdom (Rāja-Salki-bhūvallabhundu) and a goad to kings (nrip-amkusa). The second verse says that this king, who was a devotee of Kumāra-svāmin, built a temple to that god in Bejnvida (ie. Bezwada) and attached a monastery (matham) to it. This matham is, it is said, to be used as a rest house) only by the Saivite priests or mendicants (goragalu) and by rone else. If others should congregate in it, they would incur the sin of killing (cows or men) in Benares. It is stipulated that those who disobey the rule mast be expelled by the temple authorities (tāna-patulu) and the king (for the time being). The fourth verse tells us that the son of Triņayana (i.e. the god Kumāra-svāmin) of the celebrated (town of) Chēbrola came to attend & festival (jatra) at Bejaváda and so liked the place that he wished to remain there. Coming to know of this, (king) Malla built a temple and matham to the god. Here follows what appears to be a short prose passage, which I bave not been able to decipher completely. The fifth verse, which is engraved on the righthand face of the pillar, states that Yuddhamalla added a front tower (mogamāduvu) like a kalaka to the temple which his grandfather Mallapa-raja had built as an ornament and protection to (the town of) Bejavāda. This is followed by an unfinished verse, which saya To kings who willingly protect his charity' and then stops abruptly.
It seems to me that we have really two inscriptions here, the first four verses and the probe passage forming one inscription and the fifth verse and the fragment of the sixth the other. The first inscription relates to the construction of a temple to Kārttikēya and a matham by a Chalukya king named Yuddhamalla ; and it is complete in itself. The second inscription states that a certain Yuddhamalla added a tower to the temple built by his grandfather Mallapa-rāju. Very probably both the inscriptions refer to the same temple; but it is also
Mr. Krishna Sastri, who has kindly gone through this paper, suggests that the journey from Chebrölu to Bejaväda must be ascribed not to the god, but to (king) Malle. His interpretation is that Malla went from Chēbrölu to attend a játra, or religious festival, at Bejavada, and, finding Kärttikoya manifest himself there, built a temple for him and also a matham. This is a very far-fetched construction of the verse, which is uncommon in Telugu, though not in Sanokrit. If this interpretation be correct, where is the relevancy of Mulla's journey from Chebrölu to Bejavada P What does it matter whence Malla came to Bejavada or whether he travelled at all? The idea of the journey would not only be relevant, but also picturesque, it attributed to the god Karttikēga not literally, but figurntively. Before the Bejavida temple was built, Chebrölu was famous in that part of the country for its temple of Shanmukha, and the inscription seeks to enhance the importance of the Bejavida temple by representing that the idol in it is tenanted by the spirit of the great god at Chēbrölu. The idea of gods travelling to, and manifesting themselves in, sacred places is quite common in Sthala-puranas.
Mr. Krishna Sastri thinks that the first three verses refer to one temple and the fourth verse to quite a different temple. No doubt, the account of the building of the temple and watham contained in the first thren verses is, in a sense, complete in itself; but the succeeding verse seems to me to amplify what has already been stated rather than to refer to the building of a secoud temple. The imprecation contained in the second and third verses refers to the matham, while that in the prose paesage following the fourth verse seems to refer to tlo temple. Moreover, the fourth verse runs in continuation of the third, and there is no external sign to indicate that it marks the beginning of a fresh inscription. The theory of two inscriptious would involve the construction of two sets of bildings of the same nature, vis. & temple to Kārttiköya and a matham attached to it, in the same place, by two persons bearing nearly the saine name. I think that the inscription does not benr this interpreta tion, and that it refers to only one temple and one matham built by Yuddhamalla, Malladu being the short colloquial form of that name.
