It is true that the inscription begins with the praise of Śiva ue% f'kok;. But from this obeisance it cannot be concluded that the presiding deity at Ayodhyā was Śiva and not even Vishnu. These historians regard Tulasi Das as the greatest devotee of Rāma but neither his Rāmacharita-mānasa nor Vinaya-patrikā begins with the obeisance to Rāma. The latter begins with praise to Ganapati and the former with Ganeśa and Sarasvatī. But that does not diminish his devotion to Rāma.
Their second observation that the inscription attributes the beauty of Ayodhyā to the presence of Śiva, Pārvatī and Durgā is incorrect and misleading. Here the body of Ayodhyā is not compared but the body of Āyushchandra has been compared with Kāśī where reside Avimukta (Śiva), Viśālākshī (Pārvatī) and Lalitā (Durgā). Here pun has been played to mean the physical similarity of Āyushchandra and Kaśi. There is no comparison with Ayodhyā and no presence of Śiva, Pārvatī and Durgā has been shown at Ayodhyā.
(10) Verbatim translation of the Vishnu-hari inscription with ‘anvaya’
The image of the inscription is produced at the end of this chapter. Here it is presented in the verse form followed by अन्वय which will help readers to understand the translation easily and correctly. The text is based on the readings of K.V. Ramesh and T.P. Verma.
The translation has been done with the help of two erudite Pandits Śri Govind Jha and Śri Bhavanath Jha of Patna, who have suggested some readings to accommodate the text grammatically.
Verse 1.
............. नमः शिवा[य]।
Obeisance to Śiva.
In the first verse, only this much content is available, the rest is totally obliterated. However, there is enough space to accommodate a verse in the Śārdūlavikrídita metre. It might have been a eulogy of Lord Śiva.
Verse 2.
[पायाद् वत्रिदश]स् त्रिविक्रमतनो(नु) [खर्वेप्यखर्वाकृतिः]
प्रंशुत्वेन निखर्वषोडससमुद्देशां दधानस्तनुम्।
संवर्त्तप्रमदोद्धतः (तं) कुलगिरिग्रावप्रहारक्वणद्
ब्रह्माण्डं करसम्पुटेन विधुव(न)न् मध्यो ह[रिः सर्वदा]।।२।।
अन्वयः - त्रिदशः त्रिविक्रमतनो खर्व अपि अखर्वा आकृतिः प्रंशुत्वेन निखर्वषोडससमुद्देशान् तनुं दधानः संवर्त्तप्रमदोद्धतं कुलगिरिग्रावप्रहारक्वणद् ब्रह्माण्डं करसम्पुटेन विधुनन् मध्यः हरिः सर्वदा वः पायात्।
May you all be ever protected by Lord Vāmana in the form of Trivikrama who, though being dwarf, is tall with a physique which is an embodiment of all sixteen branches of knowledge. He bears in his palm the Universe which gets disturbed by cloud Samavarta and Pramad, as they strike against the rocks of Kulagiri and create echo.
Metre is the Śārdūlavikrídita.
Verse 3.
......................................................................
(श्रीम)द्भार्ग्गववि(क्रमः सुयशभृ)द्वंसो(शोऽ)वतंसो भुवः(।)
यस्मिन्रा(जति पा)लपंक्तिभिरिनस्स्थायिन्युंचद्भुज(:)
(वीरा)श्चोपचिते परार्थघटनाबंध्याननं (ना) जज्ञिरे।।३।।
अन्वयः -(श्रीम)द्भार्ग्गवविक्रमः सुयशभृद्विद्वंशः भुवः अवतंसः(बभूव)। यस्मिन् पालपंक्तिभिः इनः उदञ्चद्भुजः राजति। स्थायिनि उपचिते वीराः च परार्थघटनाबंध्याननाः जज्ञिरे।
The third śloka is quite mutilated and the reading is uncertain and difficult to follow. Nevertheless, except the first line, it has been completed and translated thus:
The dynasty, which was as ornament of the world, carries the reputation of having a long line of kings as mighty as Bhargava Parasurāma. Blessings are showered on it by the Sun along with a galaxy of kings in the raised-hand position. In this dynasty were born a number of heroes who were always ready to help others.
In this verse the world भार्ग्गवविक्रमः has been explained as भार्गव इव विक्रमः यस्य सः, i.e. he who possesses prowess like that of Bhargava. इनः is the synonym of the Sun – इनो भगो धामनिधिश्चांशुमाल्यब्जिनीपतिः।।
(Amarakośa, Ist canto, 31) Hand-raising position symbolizes showering blessings.
The reading संक्लिमिरिव is a construction which is not familiar to the Sanskrit literati. Therefore, this sentence cannot carry any meaning. However, from minute observation संक्लिमिरिव looks like पंक्तिभिरिनस्. Here परार्थघटनाबंध्याननाः is परार्थघटना अबंध्याननाः in the Sandhi-process and परार्थघटनायाम् अबन्ध्याननाः in Samāsa. अबन्ध्य in Sanskrit means “not barren, fruitfull, productive” (Apte, p. 165). Bānabhatta has used it in the Kādambarī – अबन्ध्यवांच्छितफलप्रदान – in the same meaning as it is used here. The epithet here means – those kings never failed in philanthropic acts, i.e. in providing assistance to others.
Verse 4.
ते चंडीपतिचंडतांडवचलन्चूडा[मणिः]------
ब्रह्मांडोच्चकपालरंध्रसरणीप्रस्थायिसत्कीर्त्तयः।
वीरास्तत्र कुले जनिं जगृहिरे ये भार्ग्गवीयाहव
क्षीणक्षत्रियशेषरक्षणविधौ बद्धोऽभियोगग्रहः।।४।।
अन्वयः - चंडीपतिचंडतांडवचलन् चूड़ा(मणि......) ब्रह्माण्डोच्चकपाल- रंध्रसरणी- प्रस्थायि-सत्कीर्त्तयः ते वीराः तत्र कुले जनिं जगृहिरे ये भार्गवीयाहव- क्षीणक्षत्रिय-शेषरक्षणविधौ अभियोगग्रहः बद्धः।
They were in the family of those who were always determined to protect the surviving Kshatriyas who had been rendered weak in the battle against Paraśurāma, and whose fame emanated through the cavity on the skull-shaped upper space of the cosmic globe (ब्रह्माण्ड) placed like the gem on the matted hair of the dancing Śiva.
In this śloka the reading यै in place of ये will make it correct grammatically.
Verse 5.
वंश्यन्तदेव कुलमाकुलतानिवृत्तिनिर्व्यूढमप्रतिम[विक्रम]जन्मभूमिः ।
यत्रातिसाहससहस्रसमिद्धधामा मा नो जनिष्ट जगदिष्टतमोत्तमश्री ।।५।
अन्वयः - तत् एव वंश्यं कुलम् आकुलतानिवृत्तिनिर्व्यूढ
म् (अपि च) अप्रतिमविक्रमजन्मभूमिः यत्र अतिसाहससहस्रसमिद्धधामा (वर्तते स) नः जगदिष्टतमोत्तमश्री मा जनिष्ट।
It is the abode of the dynasty which had succeeded in ending all anxiety (over Bhārgavas’ war) and is the birthplace of the man with unmatched valour, i.e. Rāma. Here resides the person who is illuminous with glory on account of thousands of valorous deeds. He may not generate greed in us even for the most sought after wealth by the world.
In the first line of this Vasantatilakā śloka it is clearly mentioned that it (the place where the inscription was recovered) was the abode and birthplace of Rāma, the man with unmatched valour. Here अप्रतिमविक्रम denotes Rāma because of two factors. The background is the ending of all anxiety over the war with Paraśurāma and अमितविक्रम is one of the thousand names of Lord Vishnu (verse 81, sr. no. 641) who in his seventh incarnation as Rāma had forced Paraśurāma to retreat forever to Mahendragiri after his marriage with Sītā. In Rāma-rakshā-stotram Rāma has been called अप्रमेयपराक्रमः in 23rd śloka and in the Vālmīki Rāmāyana (Kishkindhā. 11.93) Sugrīva calls Rāma विक्रमे वरः i.e. first in heroic worth.
The meaning of तदेव वंश्यं कुलम has not been properly understood by scholars because वंश and कुल are commonly known as synonyms in the sense of dynasty. In Sanskrit kulam+ means abode, residence also. V.S. Apte’s ‘The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary’ gives the second meaning of Kulam+ as “the residence of a family, a seat, house, an abode.” (p. 364). In Amarakośa Kulam’s synonyms are defined as – कुं गृहे पितालोके कुबेरे चैककुण्डले In Haimakośa it is कुं कुल्ये गणे देहे जनपदेऽन्वये. In Raghuvam¢śa it has been used in this sense only – वसन्नृषिकुलेषु सः (12.25).
But scholars who did not know the second meaning of the word ‘Kulam+’ have played havoc with its meaning. Even a celebrated epigraphist K.V. Ramesh has been totally stumped and his following translation, presented before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court, has been a real अनर्थ “Noble was that very family which was the birthplace of valour which had successfully removed the sufferings of the other (kshatriya clans).” The translation of Mr. Ramesh is not correct on account of many factors which are enumerated in the following paragraphs:
In this śloka kula means place and not dynasty because Vam¢śyam is already preceding kulam. It relates to Rāma, as Ayodhyā is the birthplace जन्मभूमिः of that great man who was amitavikramah (अमितविक्रमः). i.e. matchless in valour and it was Rāma and Rāma alone in the context.
Whereas the translation of the first line of the verse was beyond comprehension for those who did not know the exact meaning of the word kulam in the context, the translation of the second line is slightly intriguing because by a Sandhi rule, it may have a different meaning all together. First, I produce the अन्वय of the śloka:
यत्र (जन्मभूमौ) अतिसाहससहस्रसमिद्धधामा (वर्तते स) मा ने जनिष्ट जगदिष्टतमोत्तमश्री
Where (in that abode) resides the person who is illuminous in glory with thousands of valorous deeds, i.e. Rāma. He may not generate greed in us even for the most desired wealth in the world.
This is the simple meaning of the second line of the verse. Here मा नरे जनिष्ट has been translated as ‘may not generate’ in us. The indeclinable मा is used in the prohibitory sense, as in म् मा कुरु धनजनयौवनगर्वम् (Śankarāchārya), i.e. don’t boast of wealth and manpower. In the Gítā Lord Krishna has advised Arjuna क्लैव्यं मा स्म गमः पार्थ। मे is the shortened form of म् मह्यम्, i.e. for me and अजनिष्ट of the लुङ् लकार becomes जनिष्ट by the Sūtra न माङ् योगे which prohibits addition अट् to the formation.
But K.V. Ramesh has taken the whole expression as मामेऽजनिष्ट, i.e. मामे was born. अजनिष्ट is in the लुङ् लकार and by the Sandhi rule अ is assimilated with ए of में and an अवग्रह ऽ is optionally added or even omitted. Thus, the whole meaning changes and the translation of K.V. Ramesh runs as follows:
“… in which Mame, the abode of thousands of perfect and extremely valorous deeds and who was the utmost favourite of the world.”
The fact of the matter is that the correct reading in the inscription is मा नो and not मा मे. The relevant portion of the inscription is produced below:
सा ह स स ह स्र स मि द्धधामामा नो ज
Anyone can see here that the thirteenth letter is not like the eleventh or twelfth and hence it cannot be में It has got more resemblance to नौ But even if it is accepted that it is में; there is little difference. में is singular and नो is plural. Then the meaning will be: “He may not generate greed in me even for most exciting wealth hankered after in the world.”
Ramesh has taken जगदिष्टतमोत्तमश्री in the nominative singular case whereas it is taken by us in the plural, objective case. Both are grammatically correct but the second suits the situation more favourably.
Sanskrit scholar Dr. Mohan Chand Tiwari in his book अष्टाचक्रा अयोध्याः इतिहास और परम्परा has wilfully made an arbitrary explanation by combining देव of तदेव and कुल of कुलमाकुलता —and made it देवकुल. Then he has presented the misleading meaning“उल्लेखनीय है कि गहड़वालकालीन ‘विष्णुहरिमन्दिर’ शिलालेख की चौथी पंक्ति में यह कहा गया है कि ‘जब समस्त क्षत्रियगण रक्षा करने में क्षीण हो गये थे तब देवकुल में जन्मभूमि की प्रतिमा व्याकुल हो गयी थी।” (p. 561)
Many enthusiastic historians, too, have translated it on the same line. It indicates the lack of sound knowledge of the Sanskrit language on their part.
Verse 6.
मा मे दयास्तु वपुषि द्रविणेषु तृष्णा निष्णातिरप्यविरसा रसनेद्रियार्थे।
इत्युद्गृणन्ननुदिनं स दिनेशवत्सो मामैष[णापि] जगदे जगदेक[वीरः]।।६।।
अन्वयः - मे वपुषि मा दया अस्तु द्रविणेषु तृष्णा (मा अस्तु)रसनेद्रियार्थे निष्णातिः अपि अविरसा अस्तु इति अनुदिनम् उद्गृणन् स दिनेशवत्सः जगदेकवीरः मा मा एषणा अपिजगदे।।
‘Let me have no attachment to my body, no thirst for wealth and no indulgence for sensual pleasures’. Reciting thus daily, the scion of the Sun (Karna) used to be called the matchless hero in the world.
K.V. Ramesh, too, has translated दिनेशवत्स as Karna but he takes the King to be Mame, whereas in our translation Karna is the name of the King. In the last verse, we have read मा नो instead of मामे and here मामैषणापि instead of मामेपदेन Therefore, there is some difference in the translation. Here मामैषणापि has been read by an erud
ite Sanskrit scholar Pt. Govind Jha of Patna and therefore it has been accepted as an accurate reading.
The metre is Vasantatilakā.
Verse 7.
तद्युद्धकेलिदलिताखिलमेदभिल्लपल्लीसहस्रवनितासु निकुंजगासु।
उत्कंटका विटपिनो विटविष्टितानि ते स्वस्तनेषु जघनेषु मुहुर्लिखन्तः।।७।।
अन्वयः - तद्युद्धकेलिदलिताखिलमेदभिल्लपल्लीसहस्रवनितासु निकुंजगासु ते उत्कण्टकाः विटपिनः विटविष्टितानि स्वस्तनेषु जघनेषु मुहु लिखन्तः (आसन्)।
When in the sportive battle thousands of wives of the defeated tribes of Meda and Bhilla took refuge in forest hamlets, scratches on their breasts and thighs were repeatedly made by thorny plants, as if they were imitating amorous activities of the paramours of those women.
Though this śloka appears to be quite difficult to comprehend in the context, yet it may be presumed that it may show the pathetic condition of the wives of the soldiers of the rival camps. The poet imagines through a metaphor that bushes become sensuous after seeing those damsels, and by the movement of their thorns they write some sexual entreaties. It is worth mentioning here that the depiction of the sad plight of enemy’s women in order to highlight the prowess of the victor is a long poetic tradition in Sanskrit literature.
Ayodhya Revisited Page 44