________________
e SUKRITASAMKIRTANA of ARISIMHA
Bhima, II., is unmistakable. According to Someśvara's representation, the Gūrjararājalakshmi, the Fortúna or protectress of the kings of Gujarāt, appeared in a dream to Lavanaprasāda, the Rāņā of Dholkā, and called upon him, with the help of his son, to save the kingdom which had fallen into decay in the unskilled hands of Bhima.' Someśvara further states that he himself was called before Lavaņaprasada on the following morning and asked concerning the meaning of the vision. He convinced his master, he assures us, that he was appointed by Providence to save his fatherland and induced him to obey the command of the goddess." Thereupon Lavaņaprasāda entrusted to his son the execution of the duty laid upon him.: A short time afterwards, Vastupäla and Tejahpāla were appointed his ministers.” 4 If we reject the mythological additions in this record, which Someśvara, as a good court poet and arstist, held himself bound to put in, it merely says that Bhima was a weak and unskilful ruler, and that Lavanaprasāda and Viradhavala made use of his weakness in order to found a kingdom of their own. To this understanding we are led particularly by the circumstance, the Someśvara, in the description of the kings of Anhilvāç, expresses himself by no means respectfully concerning Bhima II, when he says (Kirtikaumudi, 11.61 ):- “Powerful ministers and barons gradually divided the kingdom of this young and foolish (bālasya) ruler,” and elsewhere again (ibid. II.4) he gives the king the same not very complimentary epithet bāla. On the other hand, there is nowhere a question of Lavaņaprasāda's service, and in the numerous inscriptions in the temples built by Vastupāla and Tejahpāla on Girnär and Ābü, and in other places, any mention of the suzerain of Gujarat is entirely wanting. On the other hand, in the Girnār inscriptions, which were written V. S. 1288, ten years before Bhima's death, Viradhavala receives the title of Mahārājādhirāja, as if he were an independent ruler. Such a disregard of the forms which Indian etiquette prescribes for Vassal-princes and their servants, shews that Bhima did not stand in great esteem at the court of Dholkā, and that he was not powerful enough to force from Layaņaprasada and Viradhavala the respect due to him. In spite of this it was probable, before the discovery of the Suksitasamkirtana, that Someśvara's account did not quite correctly represent the true relation of his master to Bhima II. For Merutunga says in the Prabandhachintāmani, p. 250 (Bombay edition), quite clearly, - I ftuafina 1941Facatatit 194812ansfag fatta197767: Sugatgiai Tri TT 15 - the administrator of the illustrious Bhimadeva, the illustrious Lavaņaprasāda, son of the illustrious Änāka (Arnorāja ) surnamed Vāghrapallīya (Vāghelā ) ruled a long time.' This note led me in my first discussion of Someśvara's works (Indian Antiquary, Vol. VI. 187 ff.) to suppose that Lavaņaprasāda was for a time in Bhima's service, and that he only later, — when Bhima's folly, to this day proverbial in Gujarāt, his arrogance and extravagance, convinced him that there was no help for it, -
1 Kirtikaumudi, II, 89-107. 2 Kirtikaumudi, II, 83-86, 108-113. 3. Kirtikaunaudi, II. 114-115.
4 Kirtikaumudi, III. 51 : compare also, II. 112, where Someśvara accentuates to his lord the necessity of appointing capable advisers.
5 The edition and Mss. of my collection write, evidently incorrectly; Vyāghapalli san Lavanaprasāda is the reading of I. O. L. B. S. MS. No. 296 instead of the Lavanasäha prasādaś of the published edition.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
