Epigraphia Indica Vol 20

Author(s): Hirananda Shastri
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India

Page 67

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
(VOL. XX.
latter by Yomesha. He was followed by Vajramitra. He was followed by Samābhāga. The latter's son was Dēvabhūmi.
Kalidasa's drama mentions three of these kings, i.e., the founder, his son Agnimitra and the latter's son Vasumitra and further informs us that Pushyamitra instituted a Räjasūya sacrifice and appointed Vasumitra as the guardian of the sacrificial horse, which in accordance with religious custom was to wander at will for a year and that the horse was seized by the cavalry of the Yavanas, whom Vasumitra successfully defeated and brought the horse back to his grandfather's sacrifice. The Rājasūya sacrifice was performed by universal monarchs and the sacrifice of this name mentioned in the drama of Kalidasa may have been the one performed by Push ya mitra on the occasion of his coronation. The Ayodhyā inscription, however, records the performance of two Atvamēdha sacrifices by Pushyamitra. It is at present not known what necessitated the institution of the second sacrifice by him. It is to the credit of Push yamitra that he revived this sacrifice which had long been in abeyance owing to Asöka's commandments prohibiting the immolation of animals even for sacrifices. Mr. Jayaswal' thinks that the Asvamëdha sacrifice mentioned in an inscription discovered at Nagari also referred to Pushyamitra. It is true that such an inscription was found by Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar when he was engaged in his excavations at Nagari. It has, however, been found by Rai Bahadur Gaurishankar H. Ojha' to be only a fragment of the Ghosūņdi inscription and to supply the missing portion of the first line of that record. Thus restored, the epigraph shows that the son of Gajāyana and Pārāsari mentioned in it was one Sarvatata, who had performed a horse-sacrifice, but makes no mention of Pushyamitra.
The Ayodhya inscription is also interesting as it establishes the fact that the correct name of the founder of the Sunga dynasty was Push yamitrs, not Push pa mitrs as found in some of the Sanskrit works. Dr. Bühler had already been led to this conclusion by the form Püsamitta which ho found in certain Jaina Prakrit gāthās, but epigraphical evidence was wanting.
The interpretation of this short record is rendered difficult by the uncertainty about the on.ct significance of the words Pushyamitrasya shashthena and I am afraid the difficulty will not be solved until another inscription of the Sunga dynasty containing the genealogy of these kings comes to light. I propose here to recapitulate what has been said by the previous writers before I record my views on the point. Pandit Ratnakara rendered these words as the sixth descendant, brother or son of Pushyamitra and as with the last alternative, Phalgudēva would become identical with Pushyamitra, he thought he could overcome the difficulty by supplying & word like pujyasya between the words pituh and Phalgudēvasya and interpret the expression as "in honour of Phalgudēva, a teacher or deity of his father." Rai Bahadur Gaurishankar Hirachand Ojha favoured the meaning "sixth in descent from Pushvamitrs," while Mr. Jayaswal preferred to interpret the expression as the sixth brother of Pushyamitra, making Phalgudēvs the father of Pushyamitra. This view was endorsed by Dr. A. Banerji-Sastri, who rejected "the descent theory” for the reason that if Dhana[dēva) was sixth in descent from Pushyamitra and evidently proud of it, his name would have ended with the word mitra. This, as Mr. N. K. Bhattasalis has shown, is no real obstacle as the names of several of the kinge of the Sunga dynasty as given in the Puranas and found on their coins have different endings. Dr. Šāstri also emphasises the fact that in the Smritis descent is signified by the termination of the 5th case, not the 6th #9
1 Modern Review, October 1924, p. 432.
The Archaeological Remains and Escavations at Nagari (Memoirs of the Arch. Surv. Ind. No 4) p. 120. Anual Report, Archaeological Survey of India, 1926-27. p 204. ind. An., Vul. II, p. 362. Modern Reviere, January to Jano 1925, p. 20%