________________
242
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
[VOL. XXXIII
leaves by the royal officials (probably the customs officials of Nädöl; cf. Section VI, b) to be enjoyed by the goddess Gauri installed in the shrine (matha) of Chandalesvara caused to be made by Mahārajni Chandaladevi. A passage in line 11 immediately after this reference is unintelligible. After this there is reference to six persons who are stated to have paid annually 100 Drammas, i.e. the coins of that name. The concluding part seems to say that the merchants, who were willing to give, would have to divide the third share of the leaves and wheat probably received as collections on behalf of the Chandalesvara or Tripurusha temple. It appears that either Chandaleśvara would have to receive one-third of the collection of leaves and wheat made on behalf of the Tripurusha temple or Gauri would have to receive a similar share out of the collection of the Chandalesvara shrine (cf. Section V below).
We have seen above, that the Nanāņa copper plate inscription of 1164 A.D. refers to the installation of the goddess Gauri in the Chandaleévara temple by Sankaradevi who was a queen of Alhaņa, son of Asārāja. If the present transaction has to be referred to Asaraja's reign, we have to suggest that the goddess was installed by Sankaradevi during her father-in-law's rule.
(b) This subsection records a regular grant of Mahäräjädhiraja Asārāja made in V.S. 1171, Pausha-vadi 10, in favour of the mehari Sōbhika on the occasion of the king's visit to her house. The gift consisted of the village of Piñchchhavalli which was granted in its entirety as far as its ascertained boundaries. It is stated that no one was allowed to disturb the mehari's possession of the land as long as the earth and the mountains would endure. It is further stipulated that, so long as the mehari Sōbhika would be allowed to enjoy the gift village, the five Dronas allotted to her previously out of Kumara's Dronas of wheat (cf. Section II, d) should be enjoyed by the god Tripu rusha and, in case there was nobody to protect [the mehari's enjoyment of] the village, the allotment of Kumara's Dronas to her should again revert to her.
The date V.S. 1171, Pausha-vadi 10, may correspond to the 23rd November 1114 A.D. This is the third known date for Asäraja's reign. The two others in V.S. 1167 and 1173 have been referred to above (ef. Section III, b).
Section V (line 17-18). There is only one transaction recorded in this section.
The first sentence states that the village of Salayi was allotted to the matha together with its entire income. The passage upari-sasana-madhye used in this connection connects this grant with the one recorded above (Section IV, 6). It appears that Piñchchhavalli-grama, allotted to Sōbhikā, belonged to the matha and that therefore the latter had to be compensated by making the gift of another village in its favour. The following sentence seems to suggest that the matha referred to was the shrine of Chandaleśvara since it is stated here that two-thirds of the village would be enjoyed by the matha (apparently of the god Chandaleśvara) and one-third by the god Tripurusha. The third and last sentence of the section states that the Bhattaraka, i.e. the king, should act in accordance with the said arrangement.
Section V1 (lines 18-19). There are two transactions in this section.
(a) The first sentence states that Mahäräjädhirāja Ratanapila (Ratnapala) gave away one Nōriya together with his relations. To which god the persons, who were probably to work as temple. servants, were allotted is not stated. There is no date mentioned in connection with this grant. But we know that V. S. 1176, Jyeshtha-vadi 8, Thursday (22nd April 1120 A.D.) fell within Ratnapaia's reign. Between Asaraja and Ratnapala who was the son of an elder brother and predecessor of Asārāja, we have two inscriptions of Asäraja's son Mahārājādhiraja Kaṭudēva or Kaṭukaraja, one of which is dated in V.S. 1172 (1115-16 A.D.).
1 Bhandarkar's List, No. 200.
See ibid., Nos. 189 and 1460. The date of the second inscription has been read as Samyat 31 which Bhandarkar refers to the Simha-samvat of V.S. 1170-1113 A.D. and equates with V.S. 1200-1143 A.D. (above, Vol. XI, p. 34). But Katukäraja could not have ruled in 1143 A D. Moreover the Simha-samvat is not known to have been used outside Kathiawar (cf. Ojha, Bharatiya Prachinalipimälä, pp. 181-82).
