________________
DECEMBER, 1902.]
THE SUKRITASAMKIRTANA OF ARISIMHA.
487
Lowever, be remarked also that neither is Viradhavala's appointment anywhere mentioned. In any case it remained without practical consequences, for Viradhavala died several years before Bhima. Also, in the statement that Bhima gave the brothers Vastupala and Tejahpala to his Sarvesvara for counsellors, Arisimha stands alone. Someśvara says nothing particular at all as to how the two Jainas acquired their dignity. In the third Sarga of the Kirtikaumudf he gives first a description of their genealogy which agrees with that given by Arisimha (vv. 45-56 above) and adds (vv. 51 and 52) that the two at once occurred to the prince who desired to win able men: he considered their great qualities and then sent for them. Further on, bis address and Vastupala's answer are given in full, without, however, affording any possibility of learning anything from them of the earlier circumstances of the latter. The later Prabandhas, Rajasekhara's Vastupalaprabandha and Jinaharsha's Vastupálacharita, state that the brothers had come accidentally to Dholká on their return from a pilgrimage to Satrumjaya, and were immediately engaged by Lavanaprasads and Viradhavala who had just seen the supernatural appearance mentioned by Somebvara. These statements, like a great deal more, seem to be borrowed directly from the Kirtikaumudi d are hence of no value. Somesvara's representation is, however, certainly defective, for he leaves it uncertain how Vastupala and Tejahpala had so distinguished themselves that Lavaņaprasada could take them for suitable instruments for his plans. On the other hand, if one accepts, as Arisimha bints (vv. 57 and 59 above), that they had both been already in the royal service, this difficulty disappears. The probability of these statements is also support.d by the circumstance mentioned by Someśvara (Kirt. III. 14) and by Arisitinha (v. 50 above), that their grandfather Soms bad held a high position under Jayasimba. In the case of the brothers having been in royal service, however, Bhima's consent was naturally necessary to their entering Lavaņaprasada's service. Thus we must declare Arisimha's account to be the more worthy of credit. We can only doubt whether Vastupala received his appointment at the same audience at which Lavanaprasada was appoiuted Sarvesvara. The date of the former event is fixed, as already mentioned, by the Girnår inscriptions, where it is repeatedly said that, from the [Vikrama] year [12]76, in Dholka and other cities, he sealed “affairs with the seal." 22 The acceptance of Arisimha's statements makes it, of course, necessary to reject the suppositions expressed on a former occasion (Indian Antiquary, loc. cit.) that the appointment of Vastupala and Tejahpala marks the period when Lavanaprasada deserted Bhima and began to found s kingdom of his own.
The new discoveries made since 1877 render it doubtfal whether the Sarpesvara or his son ever was anfaithful to his master. It appears rather as if Lavepaprasada, in his relation to the latter, although he practically ruled independently over the southern part of the Gurjara kingdom, yet conducted himself at least outwardly as a vassal, and that Professor V. A. Kathvati is quite justified in comparingas his relation to Bhima with that of the Maratha Peshvas to the court of Batara. Of special significance for this point is the Lekhapanchasikd,24 discovered by Dr. R. G. Bhandarkar, which, as he correctly acknowledges, was composed in the Vikrama year 1288, that is, twelve years after Vastupala's appointment as minister and during Phima's reign. This little work gives formulæ for letters and documents of different kinds. Among the latter there is a gift of land, dated V.-S. 1288, in which the Mahamandalesvarddhipati, the great overlord of the tributary princes," Râņa Lavanyaprasada, is named as giver. Before his name stands the whole genealogy of the Chaulukya kings of Anhilvåd, and it is remarked that, by the grace of his master Bhima IT., he possessed the Khelaldhdrapathaka, the district of Kaira, 35 Then the 'same work contains, as
n Arch. Reports of Western India, Vol. II. p. 170. Vastupils walls himself in this, and in corresponding pusages in other inscriptions, Sarvesvara; bis brother, on the other hand, Mahdidiya. 21 Kirtikaumudl, P. XIV.
* Report on Search for Banskrit M88., 1882-83, p. 28 ff. and p. 222 f. 18 This should be written p. 293 for khet karapathake, and p. 224 for khotakadhdripathake. As in other passages of the formulary, the expression is incorrect. For ahara originally corresponded approximately to the modern silla and pathaka to taluka. Moreover, similar combinations of the two expressions are found in real prosentations of land in later times,
