# The Pālas of Bengal/Chapter 4

CHAPTER IV.
The Second Empire.
The period which follows is entirely different in character, the principal actors having changed. The great Gurjara-Pratīhāra Empire was rapidly dissolving and the Rāṣṭrakūṭa kings were gradually becoming weaker. Rāṣṭrakūṭa and Gurjara invasions became things of the past. New actors were appearing in the political arena. The invasion of the Great Coḷa Conqueror left a deep impression on north eastern India. It gave Bengal a new dynasty of kings and indirectly hastened the ruin of the Pãla Empire. After the Badal pillar inscription of Narāyaṇapāla, there is no other inscription which can throw Hght on the history of Northern Bengal for three generations, i.e. till the time of Mahīpāla I. About this time some Mongolian tribes occupied the whole of the Northern Bengal and either massacred the old inhabitants or gradually forced them back southwards. A monolithic pillar now standing in the grounds of the place of the Mahārājas of Dinajpur bears a record of one of these Mongolian kings, who also claimed to be the lords of Gauḍa (Gauḍeśvara). At present the whole of Northern Bengal is strewn over with pre-MuhammadanKamboja or Mongolian invasion of North Bengal. ruins and so far the general theory had been, that these temples, monasteries and towns were ruined at the time of the Muhammadan occupation of the country. But recently a plausible theory has been started by Mr. Ramā Prasād Canda, B.A., on the basis of Dinājpur pillar inscription, according to which the ruin of these ancient cities of Northern Bengal should be differently interpreted. The inscription on the Dinājpur pillar was brought to notice in 1871 when it was published with a rude lithograph. The late Dr. Bloch examined the inscription during one of his tours and hastily gave a reading which I am afraid cannot be supported. Mr. Canda obtained some very clear and beautiful rubbings of this inscription during one of his many visits and submitted a paper on it to the Asiatic Society of Bengal. According to Mr. Canda, the Koch, Mech and the Palias of the present day are the descendants of the Mongolians who invaded and settled in North Bengal during the latter half of the ninth and the tenth century A.D. The inscription on the Dinājpur pillar, which forms the basis of Mr. Canda's paper, records the erection of a temple of Śiva during the reign of a king of Gauḍa of the Kāmboja race, in the year 888 of some unspecified era. The date is expressed as a chronogram:The date in the Dinājpur inscription. Kuñjara-Ghaṭā-varṣeṇa, which probably means 888. This date cannot be referred to the Vikrama era as in that case it would be equivalent to 831 A.D., which is too early to suit the characters used in this inscription. Neither can it be referred to the ​Gupta era as in that case it would be equal to 1207 A.D., which is certainly too late. The Kalacuri-Cedī era has never been found to have been used in Bengal. The Śaka era suits best though it has but been sparsely used in the North-East. In that case S. 888 = 966 A.D. falls just after the reign of Devapāla, the Pratihāra King of Kanauj. At that time the invaders must have settled down so that the invasion itself must have taken place some time earlier. Northern Bengal was in the undisputed possession of Nārāyaṇapāla at the time of the incision of Guravamiśra's record. So this invasion must have taken place some time between 850-950 A.D. The irruption of these Mongolian hordes must have taken place through the Himalayas, and most probably they were dispossessed of their former homes in the hills by some other invaders. So the Pālas after Nārāyaṇapāla, i.e. Rajyapāla, Gopāla II, and Vigrahapāla II, were having a rather bad time of it with the Gurjara Empire in the West and occasional Rāṣṭrakūṭa raids thrown in, and with Barbarian hordes advancing in untold numbers through the mountain passes of the North. No wonder that Magadha was annexed to the Gurjara-Pratihāra Empire. At the time of the invasion of Indra III, the Eastern Frontier of the Gurjara-Pratihāra Empire most probably extended right up to the modern Bhagirathi, and its confluence near Saugor Island. North Bengal must have remained in the possession of the Mongolian kings up to the end of the tenth century A.D. In the beginning of the eleventh century we find Kāmboja kings of Gauda.that the Pālas have recovered possession of Northern Bengal, and from this time onwards right up to the end of the second Pāla Empire, Northern Bengal continued to be in their possession. At the time of the Dinajpur inscription the Pālas seem to have been deprived of Gauḍa and consequently the Mongolian king became Gauḍeśvara. The name Kāmboja itself is of great interest. Thus far the Kāmbojas or Kamvojas were known to be a northern tribe who lived side by side with the Greeks in Afghanistan and the Western Punjab, as shown by the phrase "Yona-Kāmbojesu" in the XIII Rock Edict of Asoka. The occurrence of the name in a Bengal inscription does not mean that the Kāmbojas, whole or part, immigrated into Bengal from the Punjab across the whole of Northern India, because that would have been an impossibility in those days but shows that all Mongolians were called Kāmbojas, and that people with Mongolian features crossed over into Bengal through the Northern Mountains and as Kāmbojas. They may or may not have been a part of the people who became known during the Maurya period as the Kāmbojas.
The occupation of Gauḍa by a barbarian tribe, at a time when the whole of Magadha was in the possession of the Gurjaras, shows that the kings of the Pāla dynasty between Nārāyaṇapāla and Vigrahapāla II and Mahīpāla I were kings in name only. Most probably they ruled over an insignficant kingdom surrounded by a large number of petty monarchies. The Tirumalai inscription of Rajendra Coḷa I shows that the ancient Gauḍa and Vaṅga had become divided into a large number of small kingdoms. The exact state and extent of the Pāla dominions under ​Vigrahapāla are not known. Most probably he lost even what had belonged to Gopāla II as his son Mahīpāla I is said to have recovered his paternal kingdom. His only recorded war seems to have been conducted in Eastern Bengal. In the Āmgāchi and Dinājpur grants there is a verse about this:—
Deśe prāci pracura-payasi svaccham = āpīya toyaṁ svairaṁ bhrāntvā tad = anu malay-opatyakā-candaneṣu, Kṛtvā sāndrais = taruṣu jaḍatāṁ śīkarair = abhra-tulyāḥ prāley-ādreḥ kaṭakam = abhajan yasya senā-gajendrāḥ.—verse 11 Dinajpur grant of Mahīpāla.
But this is not very certain, as in the Āmgāchi grant of Vigrahapāla the verse is attributed to Vigrahapāla III.
After the death of Vigrahapāla II, Mahīpāla succeeded to what remained of the first Empire of the Pālas. In his Dinājpur grant he is said to have recovered the kingdom of his father:—
Hata-sakala-vipakṣaḥ saṅgare vāhu-darppād = anadhikṛta-viluptaṁ rājyam = āsādya pitryaṁ Nihita-caraṇa-padmo bhūbhṛtāṁ murdhni tasmād = abhavad = avani-pālaḥ Śrī-Mahīpāladevaḥ.
After the recovery of his paternal kingdom, Mahīpāla I must have turned his Mahīpāla I conquers Magadhaattention to the West. In his sixth year Nālanda was included in his kingdom as a manuscript copied at that place in that year of the king has been acquired for the Asiatic Society of Bengal by Mahāmahopādhyāya Hara Prasāda Śāstrī. Magadha seems to have continued in the possession of the king for a long time. In the eleventh year of the king an image of Buddha was dedicated in or near the temple of the Mahābodhi at Bodh-Gaya, and in the same year the great temple at Nālanda was restored, as it had been burnt down in a fire. After the conquest of Magadha, Mahīpāla seems to have attacked Tīrabhukti or Mithilā which continued in the possession of the king at least till his 48th year. His kingdom seems to have extended as far as Benares and continued to be included in it till 1020 A.D. In that year, two persons were deputed by the king, named Sthirapāla and Vasantapāla, to execute some repairs near the Buddhist city. The state of the Gurjara kingdom of Kanauj favoured the occupation. Occupies Benares.Only a few years before it had been devastated by Sultan Mahmūd of Ghazni, and after his departure, the king Rājyapāladeva had been deposed and murdered by the Indian Princes for having submitted to an alien conqueror. At that time Trilocanapāla was seated on the throne of the Gurjara-Pratīhāras and most probably his power did not extend beyond the confluence of the Yamunā.
In spite of the victories during the earlier part of his reign, Mahīpāla I suffered some very severe reverses from the time of the rise of the Cedis, under Gāṅgeyadeva ​and Karṇadeva and the invasion of the Coḷa king Rājendra Coḷa I. The invasion of Invasion of Rājendra Coḷa I.the Coḷa king took place before the 13th year of that prince, i.e. before 1025 A.D. Rājendra Coḷa earned the viruda of "Gaṅgegoṇḍā" or "Gangā-vijayī" by pushing as far North as the Ganges during this raid. The Tirumalai Rock inscription of the great conqueror records the Northern Campaign in detail. It is said that the king seized the "Oḍḍa-viṣaya" which was difficult to approach. This is clearly Conquest of Odra and Kośala. Daṇḍabukti and Southern Rāḍhā.the Odra Viṣaya of the copper-plate inscriptions of Orissa. Then he entered "Koṣalaināḍu," i.e. the Kośala of the inscriptions of the Soma-vaṁśī kings of Orissa. Next in order comes the subjugation of Daṇḍabhukti. The province has been identified by Mahāmahopādhyāya Hara Prasāda Śāstrī with the modern province of Bihar, because the ancient name of the town of Bihar was called Otantapuri by the Tibetans and Adwand Bihār by the Muhammadans. But this identification is scarcely tenable. Uddandapura,The place is mentioned in the Rāmacarita of Sandhyākaranandi where a person named Jayasiṁha is said to have been its ruler and is said to have aided Rāmapāla in his wars in Northern Bengal. This man is said to have defeated Karṇa-Keśarī, the king of Orissa. Most probably Daṇḍabhukti was the march-land between Orissa and Bengal, corresponding to the modern British districts of Midnapur and Balasore, and the man had defeated the king of Orissa in one of his expeditions against Bengal. It is more probable for a king of the march-lands to come into conflict with the king of Orissa than for the ruler of Magadha. Moreover the order in which the names of the countries are mentioned prevents us from supposing that Bihar is the country mentioned as we shall see later on. From Daṇḍabhukti the king passed on to Bengal, attacking and occupying the province of "Takkaṇa-Lāḍam." This name has been taken to be the equivalent of "Dakṣiṇa Lāṭa" by the late Dr. Kielhorn, which is the ancient name of Southern Gujarat. But Messrs. Hultzsch and Venkayya take it to mean "Dakṣiṇa Virāṭa" or Southern Berar. Mr. Venkayya is a great authority on Tamil, and he supposes that "the Tamil term "Ilaḍa" does not correspond to Sanskrit Lāṭa (Gujarat) but to Virāṭa (Berar)". But nowhere did it strike the learned scholars that the order in which the countries are mentioned, prevents us from supposing that either Berar or Gujarat is mentioned. In fact the country mentioned is Southern Rāḍhā. Mr. Venkayya will find, on re-considering the question, that Dakṣiṇa-Rāḍhā is a better equivalent for Tamil Takkana-Lāḍam than Dakṣiṇa-Virāṭa. Immediately after "Takkana-Lāḍam" we have the mention of Vaṅgāla-deśa, which all authorities agree as being equal to Vaṅga or Eastern Bengal. No sane man would turn from Orissa to conquer Southern Gujarat or Berar and then return to the East to conquer East Bengal, ​after which he turns back to the West to defeat Mahīpāla in North Bengal and again rushes to North Gujarat or Berar to conquer it. The more natural explanation is that Rājendra Coḷa defeated Raṇaśūra, the ruler of Southern Rāḍhā, and then passed on through that country to invade Vaṅga. From very early times a part of Bengal has been called Rāḍhā. It occurs in a dated inscription of the Indo-Scythian period as Rārā. This inscription is at present in the Indian Museum, in Rāḍhā as an ancient name.Calcutta, but it was discovered in Mathurā in the United Provinces. The record mentions the erection of a Jaina image in the year 62 of the Kuṣana era = 150 A.D. at the request of a Jaina monk who was an inhabitant of the country of Rārā. In comparatively modern times the name has been found on two copper-plate inscriptions:—
       (1) The newly discovered grant of the Sena king Vallālasena, found at Sitāhāṭī, near Kāṭwā, in the Burdwān district of Bengal, where we find that the village granted, Vāllahiṭṭi, was situated in the North Rāḍhā (Uttara-Rāḍhā-maṇḍale). The very name Uttara-Rāḍhā occurs in the Tirumalai inscription as we shall see later on. Besides this, the kings of the Sena dynasty seem to have ruled in the Rāḍhā country:—
       Vaṁśe tasy = ābhyudayini sadācāra-caryā-niruḍhi-prauḍhāṁ Rāḍhām-akalita-carair = bhūṣayantoऽnubhāvaiḥ,
       Śaśvad = viśv-ābhaya-vitaraṇa-sthūla-lakṣyāvalakṣaiḥ kīrtty-ullolaiḥ snapita-viyato jajñire rājaputrāḥ.—verse 3.
There being a Uttara-Rāḍhā we can say from immediate inference, that there was a Dakṣiṇa-Rāḍhā, which in Tamil becomes "Takkana-Lāḍam."
       (2) Besides this the Kenduāpatna plates of Narasiṁhadeva II of Orissa, dated Śaka 1217 = 1296 A.D., show very clearly that Rāḍhā and Vārendrī were well-known names of divisions of Bengal:—
       Rāḍhā-Vārendra-yavanī-nayan-āñjan-āśru-pūreṇa dūra-viniveśitakālima-śrīḥ,
       Tad-vipralambha-karaṇ-ādbhuta-nistaraṅgā Gaṅgāpi nūnam-amunā Yamun = ādhun = ābhūt.—verse 84.
At the time of the Coḷa invasion a king named Raṇaśūra was ruling Southern Rāḍhā. In Bengal there is a tradition that a dynasty of kings with the affix Śūra ruled in Bengal before the Pālas. We have no reliable evidence for this. But three kings of this family, at least with the word Śūra affixed to their names, have been mentioned in epigraphs. These are: Raṇaśūra, of the Tirumalai inscription; Lakṣmīśūra, a king of a division of Bengal named Apara-Mandāra, a contemporary of Rāmapāla, who was the headman of all feudatories of Forest lands (samastāṭavika-sāmanta-cakra-cuḍāmaṇiḥ); a man named Damaśūra, who is mentioned in a newly-discovered inscription of the time of Gopāla III, found at Manda in the Rājshāhi district of Bengal. After conquering Southern Rāḍhā, the Coḷa king did not proceed to subdue the northern portion of it, but on the other hand, passed eastwards towards Vaṅga, ​which was then ruled by a king named Govinda-Candra. This king has been wrongly Conquest of Eastern Bengal.identified with a king named Govinda-Candra or Govi-Canda, about whom some songs are current in the State of Kuch-Bihar and the Rungpur district of Bengal. The king of that name mentioned in the Tirumalai inscription is expressly stated to be the King of Eastern Bengal, and so there is very little chance of identifying him with the local hero of Rungpur. After conquering Eastern Bengal, Rājendra Coḷa turned towards the West and faced Mahīpāla, who had been rightly identified by the late Dr Kielhorn with the Pāla king Mahīpāla I, who was defeated. The inscription is so Defeat of Mahīpāla and conquest of Northern Rāḍhā.worded that one at once understands that by defeating Mahīpāla, the king was able to reach "Uttira-Lāḍam" and the Ganges. Uttira-Lāḍam for the same reasons as have been stated above in the case "Takkana-Lāḍam" should be taken to be Northern Rāḍhā, which is actually mentioned as a maṇḍala in the Sītāhāṭi grant of Vallālasena. Moreover there is no evidence to prove that Berar or Virāṭa was divided into two parts at any time. Again from Bengal Rājendra Coḷa reached Uttara-Rāḍha and after that the Ganges. It is a far cry from Berar to the Ganges, but the sacred river which added lustre to the conquest of Rājendra Coḷa I in the eyes of the Southern people actually forms the Northern boundary of Rāḍha. The divisions of Bengal across the great river are known as Mithilā and Vārendra, the latter of which is mentioned in the Rāma-carita, and at least three copper-plates. So now it is clear that the Ganges formed the Northern boundary of the conquest of Rājendra Coḷa I. Curiously enough he did not attempt to cross the Ganges to the other side. The Tirumalai inscription being a Praśasti does not mention such details. But the desired details are supplied by an ancient manuscript discovered by Mahāmahopādhyāya Hara Prasāda Śāstrī and now in the library of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. In 1893 the Mahāmahopādhyāya published notes on a find of ancient Sanskrit manuscripts among which was a drama named Caṇḍa-Kauśika, by Ārya Kṣemīśvara. This play was enacted before the king by his order, and it contains a verse in which the king Mahīpāla I is compared with Candragupta and a people named Karṇāṭakas, to the Nandas. So this contemporary work gives the credit of defeating the Karṇāṭakas to Mahīpāla I. The Karṇāṭakas seem to be the southerners who invaded Bengal under Rājendra Coḷa I. It appears that though Mahīpāla I was defeated by Rājendra Coḷa when he crossed into Rāḍhā from East Bengal, he prevented him from crossing the Ganges into Varendra or Northern Bengal, and so the Coḷa conqueror had to turn back from the banks of the Ganges. The manuscript on which Mahāmahopādhyāya Hara Prasāda Śāstrī relies is not a modern one, as it was copied in 1331 A.D. The invasion of the Coḷa king did not change the political divisions of the country, but it left one permanent mark in the shape of a body of settlers, who occupied the thrones of Bengal and Mithilā as the Sena and Karṇāṭa dynasties during the latter days of the Pālas.
The Coḷa invasion took place, as has been stated above, before the thirteenth ​year of the king, i.e. 1025 A.D. The very next year we find that the Wheel of Law at Benares is being repaired, and a new temple (Gandha-kūṭī) built by the brothers Sthirapāla and Vasantapāla under the orders of the king.
The record of these events is found in an inscription discovered amidst the ruins of Sārnāth near Benares more than a hundred years ago. It is incised on the pedestal of an image of Buddha, which is at present in the Provincial Museum at Lucknow. This image was dedicated in the Vikrama year 1083 = 1026 A.D. Very soon after this Benares was taken away from the Pālas by the Cedī Emperor of Gāṅgeyadeva who invaded North-Eastern India about this time and had occupied it six or seven years ago. Some time before 1881 A.D., some metal images were found near a village Imādpur in the Muzaffarpur district of Bengal, which were pronounced The struggle with the Cedi Empire.by Dr. Hoernle to have been dedicated in the 48th year of Mahīpāladeva. As these images were found in Tirhut or Tīrabhukti, it is natural to conclude that Mithila was in the possession of the Pālas up to the 48th year of Mahīpāla I. But six years before the erection of the temple Conquest of Mithilā.of Sārnath, Mithilā passed out of the hands of the Pālas. In the year 1020 A.D. Gāṅgeyadeva was in possession of Tīrabhukti or Mithilā. A copy of the Rāmāyaṇa copied in that year v. s. 1076 mentions Tīrabhukti as being in the possession of Gāṅgeyadeva:—
Saṁvat 1076 āṣāḍha badi 4 mahārājādhirāja puṇyāvaloka-somavaṁśodbhava-Gauḍadhvaja-Śrīmad-Gāṅgeyadeva-bhujyamāṇa Tīrabhuktau kalyāṇavijayarājye.
Very soon after Benares passed into the hands of the Cedīs. Karṇṇadeva, the son of Gāṅgeyadeva, was in possession of Benares in 1042 A.D. (Kalacurī-Cedī year 793). Tīrabhukti or Mithilā was never recovered by the Pālas. The only Pāla records referring to this Province are the Bhāgalpur grant of Nārāyaṇapāla and the Imādpur image inscription of Mahīpāla I.
Mahīpāla I was succeeded by his son Nayapāla, who is called Nyāyapala on the authority of some unpublished record, by Mahāmahopādhyāya Hara Prasāda Śāstrī. Successor and length of reign.According to Tārānātha, Mahīpāla reigned for fifty-two years, which is most probably correct as the Imādpur images were dedicated in the 48th year of the king. Of the relations of the king we only know the names of the brothers Sthirapāla and Vasantapāla, who were most probably nearly related to him besides his son Nayapāla. The long reign of Mahīpāla I is very fruitful in inscription and manuscript records. The earliest of these is the manuscript of Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā, now in the University Library at Cambridge. The colophon runs thus:—
Parameśvara paramabhaṭṭāraka-paramasaugata-mahārājādhirāja Śrīman-Mahīpāladeva pravarddhamāna-vijayarājye samvat 5 Āśvine Kṛṣṇe.
​The date next in order is to be found in a manuscript of the same work, collected by Mahāmahopādhyāya Hara Prasāda Śāstrī, for the Asiatic Society of Bengal. The reading of the colophon as revised by the late Dr. Theodor Bloch runs as follows:—
Deyadharmmeyaṁ pravaramahāyānayāyinaḥ Tāḍivāḍi-Mahāvihārīya āvasthitena Śākyācārya-sthavira-Sādhuguptasya yad = atra puṇyan = tad = bhavatv = ācāry = opādhyāya-mātā-pitṛ-puraṅgamaṁ kṛtvā sakala-satva-rāśer = anuttara-jñāna phal = āvāptaya iti. Paramabhaṭṭāraka-Mahārājādhirāja-Parameśvara-Paramasaugata Śrīmad-Vigrahapāladeva-pādānudhyāta Paramabhaṭṭāraka-Mahārājādhirāja-Parameśvara-Paramasaugata Śrīman = Mahīpāladeva-pravarddhamāna-Kalyāṇavijayarājye ṣaṣṭha-sambatsare abhilikhyamāne yatrāṅke samvat 6 Kārttika-Kṛṣṇa-trayodaśyān = tithau maṅgala-vāreṇa bhaṭṭārikā-niṣpāditam = iti॥ Śrī Nālandāvasthita-Kalyāṇamitra-Cintāmaṇikasya likhita iti.
This colophon proves that in the sixth year of Mahīpāla Nālanda was in his possession, and thus a part at least of Magadha was included in his dominions. Next in order comes an inscription incised on the pedestal of an image of Buddha, in the attitude of touching the earth (Bhūmisparśa mudrā). This image is now being worshipped as one of the five Pāṇḍus, in a small shrine just in front of the entrance of the great temple at Bodh-Gayā. The inscription consists of three lines, in an imperfect state of preservation, the first part of each line having lost a number of letters. It is dated in the eleventh year of the reign of Mahīpāla, presumably the first, as the letters still show signs of acute angles at their lower extremities. It has been referred to by Cunningham. The text runs:—
* Deya-dharmmoyam .......... tad-bhavatv = ācāry = opādhāya-mātā-pitṛ-pūrvvaṅgamaṁ kṛtvā sakala-satva-rāśer = anuttara-jñān = āvāptaya-iti॥ Mahā-
* [rājādhirāja-Parameśvara-Pa]ramabhaṭṭāraka-Paramasaugata-Śrī-mān = Mahīpāladeva-pravarddhamāna-vijayarājye ekādaśame samvatsare abhilikhya[māne]
* .......... pañcamyān = tithau gandha-Kūṭī-dvaya-sahitā……karitāv = iti.
The name of the donor of the two temples (Gandha-Kūṭīdvaya) and the image is unfortunately lost. As the name of the month in this inscription is illegible it is impossible to state whether it was incised before or after Balāditya's Nālandā inscription of the same year which has been placed next in order. This inscription was discovered by Broadley among the ruins of the great Vihāra at Nālandā where it was found on a door-jamb. According to this inscription the great temple The restoration of the Great Vihāra at Nālandā.at Nālandā was restored after being burnt down by a man named Bālāditya, a Jyāvisa of Telāḍhaka (modern Telara) who had emigrated from Kauśāmbī, in the eleventh year of Mahīpāladeva.
​The conquest of Northern Bengal must have taken place some years earlier. In his ninth year Mahīpāla granted the village of Kuraṭapallikā, with the exception of Cuṭapallikā, in the Gokalikā maṇḍala, Koṭivarṣa viṣaya of the Pauṇḍravarddhana bhukti to a Brāhmaṇa named Kṛṣṇādityaśarmaṇ. It has been proved by another inscription, the Maṇahali grant of Madanapāla, that the Koṭivarṣa viṣaya was situated in Northern Bengal, as both inscriptions have been discovered- in the Dinājpur district. An inscription incised on the pedestal of a colossal image of Buddha, still in situ, at Tetrawan, an ancient site six miles from Bihār in the Patna District of Bengal, contains the name of Mahīpāla, the rest having become illegible. Most probably it was dedicated during the reign of Mahīpāladeva. The images discovered at Imādpur in the Muzaffarpur district of Bengal in 1881 were most probably dedicated in the 48th year of Mahīpāla I, as Mahīpāla II had a very short reign. The 48th year of Mahīpāla I must have fallen before 1020 A.D., as in that year the Cedī Emperor Gāṅgeyadeva was in possession of Tīrabhukti or Tirhut. The last inscription of Mahīpāla is the Sarnath inscription of the Vikrama year 1083. This inscription was either posthumous, or incised when the city of Benares had passed from the hands of the Pālas to those of the Cedīs. The repair of the Wheel of Law and the building of the temple seem to have begun some time before and the work was completed either after Mahīpāla's death or in his last year, when he had lost Benares and Tirhut. Mahīpāla was succeeded by his son Nayapāla, called Nyāyapāla by Mahāmahopādhyāya Hara Prasāda Śāstrī, on some unknown authority. His minister's name was Vāmaṇabhaṭṭa, who is the Dūtaka of the Bangarh grant of this king called the Dinājpur grant by Dr. Kielhorn.
Nayapāla succeeded the throne of the Pālas some time between 1025—30 A.D. At that time the extent of the Pāla Empire had been considerably diminished by the loss of Benares and Tīrabhukti. Gāṅgeyadeva was succeeded by his son Karṇa, Nayapāla Acc. 1025—30 A.D.who with the help of some Southerners overran the whole Northern India. The Nāgpur praśasti of Udayāditya of Mālava speaks of him as one who, joined by the Karṇāṭakas, had swept over the earth like a mighty ocean:—
Tasmin = vāsava-vandhutām = upagate rājye ca kuly = ākule Magnasvāmini tasya vandhur = Udayādityo-bhavad-bhūpatiḥ Yen = oddhṛitya mahārṇṇav = opama-mulat = Karṇṇāṭa-Karṇṇa-prabhum = urvvīpālakadarthitāṁ bhuvam = imāṁ Śrīmad-Varāhāyitaṁ—verse 32.
According to the Bheraghat inscription of Alhaṇadevī, we find:—
Pāṇḍyaś = caṇḍimatām = mumoca Muralas = tatyāja garvva-grahaṁ
Kuṅgaḥ sadgatim = ājagāma cakape Vaṅgaḥ Kaliṅgaiḥ saha,
Kīra Kīravadāsa pañjaragṛhe Hūṇaḥ praharṣaṁ jahau
Yasmin = rājam Śaurya-bibhrama bharaṁ vibhraty-apūrvva-prabhe—verse 12.
​Karṇṇadeva is said to have subdued or held in check the Pāṇḍyas, Muralas, Kuṅgas, Vaṇgas, Kaliṅgas, Kīras and Hūṇas. In the Karanbel inscription of Jayasiṁhadeva it is stated that Karṇṇa was waited upon by the Coḍa, Kuṅga Hūṇa, Gauḍa, Gurjara and Kīra princes:—
Nīcaiḥ sañcara Coḍa-Kuṅga kim=idaṁ phalgu tvayā valgyate Hūṇ=aivam raṇituṁ na yuktam=iha te tvaṁ Gauḍa garvvan=tyaja, m=aivaṁ Gurjjara garjja Kīra nibhṛto varttasva sevā-gatān=itthaṁ yasya mitho-virodhi-nṛpatīn dvāstho vininye janaḥ.—L. II—12.
According to the Cedī inscriptions Karṇṇa subdued or defeated the king of Gauḍa, whoever he might be. Mr. Monmohan Cakravartti first of all pointed out mentions of a war between Nayapāla and the king of Karṇya. The term "king of Karṇya" seems to be a translation of the Sanskrit word "Karṇarāja," "the king Karṇa." The form Karṇya seems to be a mistake. In his article on the Kṛṣṇadvārika temple inscription of Nayapāla Mr. Cakravartti has pointed out that Atīśa mediated between Nayapāla and the king of Karṇya about the year 1035 A.D. So the Cedī Emperor Karṇadeva, who is in reality the same person as the king of Karṇya of Tibetan literature, must have invaded Magadha some time before 1035 A.D. The incidents of the campaign are mentioned in Rai Śarat Candra Dās Bahadur's article on the Life of Atīśa:—
Karṇadeva, the Cedī, invades Magadha."During Atīśa's residence at Vajrasena a dispute having risen between the two, Nayapāla, king of Magadha, and the Tīrthika, king of Karṇya of the West, the latter made war upon Magadha. Failing to capture the city, his troops sacked some of the sacred Buddhist institutions and killed altogether five (men) ………… Afterwards when victory turned towards (Nayapāla) and the troops of Karṇya were being slaughtered by the armies of Magadha, he took the king of Karṇya and his men under his protection and sent them away ………… Atīśa caused a treaty to be concluded between the two kings. With the exception of the articles of food that were destroyed at the time of war, all other things which had fallen in the hands of the parties were either restored or compensated for".
Nayapāla must have reigned at least fifteen years as two of his inscriptions were incised in that year. The first is the Kṛṣṇa-dvārikā temple inscription, referred to Length of reign, Inscriptions and MS. Records.above, which records the erection of a temple of Viṣṇu by a low class Brāhmaṇa named Viśvāditya, the son of Śūdraka and the grandson of Paritoṣa, in the fifteenth year of king Nayapāladeva. The verses were composed by a veterinary named Sahadeva and the engraving was done by the artisan Saṭṭasoma, son of Adhipasoma. The second inscription was discovered by Mr. Parameśvar Dayāl, then Court of Wards Head Clerk in Gayā, in 1884, inside the small temple of Narasiṁha in the Viṣṇupāda compound. It was pointed out by him to Mr. Cakravartti, and to the late Dr. ​Bloch in 1902. But as this inscription has never been properly edited I am taking this opportunity of transcribing it:—
(1) Oṁ Lakṣmīś=cirañ=jayati vāri-nidher-aneka-manthā-kulād-adhigatā puruṣottamasya। Snihyat=tirovalita-sammada ghūrṇṇamana-netrāvalokana nirasta-samasta vighnā॥
(2) S=eyaṁ vrahmapurī Gay=eti jagati khyātā svayaṁ vedhasā sthātuṁ brahmavidāṁ pur=īva ghaṭitā mokṣasya saukhyasya ca। vrumaḥ kiñ=ca bhavanti yatra pitaraḥ pretā-
(3) -layāvāsinaḥ pādaspṛṣṭa-jala-pradāna-vidhinā nāk=āṅganā-nāyakāḥ॥ Asyāṁ vabhūva puri vakragati-dvijihva-samrāḍ-bhujaṅga-ripur-acyuta-pādasevī। yo
(4) nāma viṣṇur-rathavad-dvijarājavaryaḥ prītyā satāṁ ca Paritoṣa iti prasiddhaḥ॥ Tasmād=vidher=iva vabhūva sanatkumāraḥ Śrī Sūdrako vimala-vuddir=anekavidyaḥ।
(5) Bhūy-opi yena vidhin=aiva kṛtā Gay=eyaṁ vāhvor-valena suciraṁ paripālitā ca॥ Tasmād=ajāyata sutaḥ sutavad=dvijānāṁ yo-bhūt suvismaya-rasāvaha-kartaka-
(6) ś=ca॥ Viśvāpakāraka-nirākṛtaye-vatīrṇṇaḥ Śrī Viśvarūpa iti kīrttita viśvarūpaḥ॥ Yaṁ prāpya c=ārthijana-vṛndam-akalpa-dānam=āpurbhavat pulaka-jālam—ana-
(7) -nta-modaṁ। Sphīti-sphurad=dhana-kṛtārthatayā durāpa-cintāmaṇi-grahaṇakaṁ na kadāpi dadhmau॥ Yen=āsurāri-caritena mahodayena yantī rasātalam-iv-āvani-
(8) -r=uddhṛt-eyaṁ। Śrī-mad-Gayā-kali-mala-dvija-rāja-pakṣa-saṁkṣobha-kampita-tanur=bhuja-vikrameṇa॥ Yasmai viśuddha-caritāya nisagra-sauryarāśi-priyāya vi-
(9) -nay-āmala-bhūṣanāya āvālyataḥ prabhṛti deva-manuṣya-loko vaddhāñjaliś=cirataraṁ spṛhayāṁ cakāra॥ Ten=emāñ=ca GADĀDHAR=ĀDI-nilayavyājena tāḥ kī-
(10) kīrttayaḥ svetaṅśor=iva raśmayaḥ sughaṭitā[ḥ] santāpa-śāntyai sadā। Yatrāmbho-nidhi vīcivad=daśadiśām prakṣālan-aikacchaṭāḥ pātāla-prativāsi-ghora-timi-
(11) -ra-pradhvansa-dīpā iva॥ Etāḥ santu Gayāpurī sutaruṇī bhūṣāvalī kīrttayo yāvac=candra-divākarau ca gaganaṁ Śri-viśvarūp-āhvayaḥ Kartāsāṁ ca tathā pu-
(12) -rāṇa-puruṣān rājño-pi dhikkṛtya sad-yen-ākasmika-vismay-aika-rasiko loko muhur=murcchitaḥ। Dākṣiṇyād=uparuddhena prītis-timita cetasā। Praśastir-e-
(13) -ṣā vihitā VAIDYA ŚRĪ-VAJRAPAṆIṆĀ। Vijñāna-kauśal-ollāsa-jāta-naipuṇa karmmaṇā praśastir=eṣā likhitā Sarvvānandena dhīmatā। Kṣīrāmbho-nidhi-mekha-
(14) -lā-maṇi-guṇ-ālaṁkāritāyā bhuvo bharttuḥ ŚRĪ-NAYAPĀLA-DEVA-nṛpate rājñāśrīyaṁ vibhrataḥ saṁvṛtte tarasaiva PAÑCA-DAŚAME RĀJYASYA SAMVATSARE kīrttiḥ siddhim=upāgatā bhagavataḥ
(15) Śrī-mad-GADĀDHĀRIṆAḤ।
​The main object of the inscription seems to be the recording of the ancestry and the name of the donor as well as the date of the building of the Temple of Gadādhara and several other minor temples of Viṣṇu. As the inscription itself was found in the temple of Narasiṁha which is only few paces behind that of Gadādhara at Gayā it seems certain that the ancient materials which have been profusely used in the modern temple of Gadādhara are the remains of the temple built by Viśvarūpa in the fifteenth year of the reign of Nayapāladeva.
The Kṛṣṇa-Dvārikā temple inscription referred to above also records the erection of temple of Viṣṇu in the fifteenth year of Nayapāla:—
Saptāmvu-rāśi-visarat (ac-ch) ślatha mekhalāya asyā bhūvaḥ kati na bhūmi-bhujo-vabhūvuḥ, Siddhiṁ na kasyacid=agād=yad=analpa-kalpais=ten=ātra Kīrttanam=akāri Janārdanasya,—verse 17.
The modern temple of Kṛṣṇa-dvārikā is built almost entirely of ancient materials and it is quite possible that these materials are the only remnants of Viśvāditya or Viśvarūpa's temple. The only other existing record of Nayapāla is in the colophon of a manuscript of Pañca-rakṣā in the collection of the Cambridge University:—
Deyadharmosyam=pravara-mahāyāna-yāyinyāḥ Paramopāsikā-Rājñī-Uddākāyā yad=atra puṇyan=tad=bhavatv=ācāry=opādhyāya-matā-pitṛ (pūrvaṅgama)ṅ-kṛtvā sakala-satva-rāśer-anuttara-jñān=āvāptaya iti॥ Paramasaugata-Mahārājādhirāja-Parameśvara Śrī-man=Nayapāladeva-pravarddhamāna-vijayarājye samvat 14 Caitra dine 27 likhit-eyaṁ bhaṭṭārikā iti.
Nothing else is known about Nayapāla and his relations. He was succeeded by his son Vigrahapāla III. Nayapāla's reign most probably did not extend beyond the date of the Kṛṣṇa-dvārikā and Gadādhara temple inscriptions and seems to have come to an end some time between 1045 and 1050 A.D. It is said in a commentary on Cakradatta that Cakrapāṇi Datta was the kitchen superintendent of king Nayapāla.
At the beginning of his reign Vigrahapāla came into conflict with his father's antagonist, the Cedī Emperor Karṇa. Karṇa's power at that time was at its lowest ebb. Vigrahapāla III: his war.He was being constantly defeated by the neighbouring princes. He had a very long reign, his own with that of his son having covered a century. In the height of his power he had overrun the whole of Northern India but in his old age he suffered many reverses. He was defeated by the Candella Kīrttivarman, by Udayāditya of Mālava, by Bhīmadeva I of Anahilvād, who is eulogised by the grammarian Hema-candra for having defeated Karṇa in battle, and by the Western Cālukya Someśvara I, which is recorded by the poet ​Bilhaṇa in his Vikramāṇka-deva Carita, where Karṇa is mentioned as the god of death to the Lord of the Kalañjara mountains, e.g. the Caṇḍellas. In his last war with the Pālas, Karṇa was defeated and sued for peace. Vigrahapāla III married the Marriage with Princess Yauvanaśrī, the daughter of Karṇa.aged king's daughter Yauvanaśrī. Karṇa's war with Vigrahapāla and his subsequent relationship was made known to us by Mahāmahopādhyāya Hara Prasāda Śāstrī's unique discovery, "The Rāmacarita of Sandhyākaranandi":—
Anyatra । yo Vigrahapālo Yauvanaśriyā Karṇasya rājñaḥ sutayā saha Kṣauṇīmudūdhavān। Sahasā valen=āvito-rakṣito raṇajitaḥ saṅgrāmajitaḥ Karṇo Dāhal=ādhipatir=yena। Raṇajita eva parantu rakṣito na unmūlitaḥ—Commentary on verse 9.
It is evident from the commentary the Karṇa suffered a severe reverse at the hands of his future son-in-law and that though defeated he was not "uprooted," i.e. deprived of his kingdom. It may be that the proud Cedī gave his daughter to Vigrahapāla to avert a calamity. Vigrahapāla III probably had a very short reign, not exceeding thirteen years. Had he lived longer the Pāla Empire may have lasted for some time. His sons were continually quarrelling among themselves and reigned for very short periods. The subordinate princes eagerly availed themselves of the opportunity of throwing off the yoke and the Pāla princes never gained the opportunity of subjugating the territories lost at this time.
Three inscriptions of Vigrahapāla III have been discovered as yet, of which one is on a copper-plate and the other two on stone. The copper-plate is the well-known one from Āmgachi in the Dinājpur District. The inscription has been edited many times but the first twenty lines edited by the late Prof. Kielhorn and the remaining portion by Dr. A. F. R. Hoernle are the only reliable versions. A fresh edition of this important inscription is very urgently wanted. I hope to take up this work ere long and compare it with the Bangarh grant of Mahīpāla I as suggested by Mr. V. A. Smith. The Āmgāchi plate records the grant of half of the village named Brāhmaṇī in the Koṭivarṣa viṣaya of the Pauṇḍravarddhana bhukti to a Brāhmaṇa named Khoddhata-devaśarman on the ninth day of Caitra in the 13th year of the king. On the other two inscriptions of this king, the Akṣayavaṭa inscription is the most important. It was noticed by Cunningham in the third volume of his Reports. The late Dr. Th. Bloch published a summary of its contents but at that time the last lines of the inscription were covered with plaster and so he missed the name of the king and the date. After frequent trials I succeeded in removing the plaster and copying the entire inscription. The central part of the inscription has suffered seriously and is only partly legible. Otherwise the inscription is quite clear. It records the erection of a liṇga (Vaṭeśa) at Akṣayavaṭa and another called ​Prapitāmaheśvara close by, in the fifth year of the reign of Vigrahapāladeva. As the record has never been properly edited before I do so from the original stone:—
(1) Oṁ Oṁ namaḥ Śivāya॥ Dayābhāṇḍāgāraṁ niravadhi-jagad-doṣa-vijayi sphuraj=jñāna-jyotiḥ prasara-nihata-dhvānta-nicayaṁ। Kim-apy-antaḥ sāntaṁ sahaja-sukha-pīyuṣa-laharī ......
(2) -ra hṛdayamaṅgho haratu vaḥ॥ Āsandhāyā-kalaṅkān=prati-vapuṣa iva brāhmaṇān=avja-janmā svargga-dvār-ādhirohām=amṛta-pada-sukha-prāptaye pretya bhājaḥ। Sākṣāt saṁsāra-bhūṣāva ........
(3) Śrīmad-bhūmiṁ śaśvat=trailokya-lakṣmī=nilayam=iva purīṁ Śrī Gayām=eṣa cakre॥ Gayāyām=etasyāṁ puri sakala-saundarya nilaye dvijātīnāṁ mānyo dvija-pada-sarojāka ......
(4) -ma premnā parama-paritoṣasya jananād=abhūd=dhanyaḥ Śrīmān sa khalu Paritoṣ-āhvaya iti॥ Tasmād=abhūj=jalanidher=iva śītaraśmiḥ Śrī Śūdrako vimalakāntir=ananta-lakṣmī [ḥ] ......
(5) kaṇṭha-sravābhirāmam=ānanditāni yaśasā bhuvan-āntarani॥ Āsādy=āmara-rāja-rājya-padavīṁ devībhir=ākrīḍitaṁ divy-ātmatvam=anaṅga-darppa-dalan=odgār-aika-modaṁ vapu [ḥ ......
(6) -nti (?) kautuka-rasān=marttyo' vatīrṇṇas-tato jāto deva-kumāra-murttirasamaḥ Śrī Viśvarūp=āhvayaḥ॥ Yo vidhvasta-samasia-vairi-nivahaḥ sphuryat=pratāp-ānalaḥ saujanyasya nidāna ......
(7) -ma keli-drumaḥ॥ sāndrānandamayo nisargga-madhura-vyāhāra-ratnākaro dīn=ānātha-vipanna-cāraṇa-gaṇa-trāṇāya cintāmaṇiḥ॥ Gaṇḍasthale mṛgamad-āmala-patra-bhaṅgān svairaṁ ......
(8) -lekhanībhīḥ। Adyāpi yasya sura-kinnara-gīyamānāṁ devyaḥ śilāsu vijaya-stutim=ālikhanti॥ Dharmmeṇ=otsvasitaṁ mudā vihasitaṁ saṁloka maryādayā trayyā visphuritaṁ ......
(9) -ttribhir-jjṛmbhitaṁ। yasmin-āsvāmini sarvvataḥ samudaye tepy-arthinaḥ sāhasaṁ sāndrānandamayāḥ sva-dainya-virahān-nṛtyanti pūrṇṇāśayāḥ॥ N=occaiś-caṇḍa-karo na c=āpi vigata ......
(10) ten-āstam yāti jaḍātmabhiḥ pratihato n-ānyair=apūrṇṇo bhavaḥ। Jihvāgreṇa vināgasaḥ prati muhūrtt-āpya sthirān-agrahīn-naivāsaṁga-digamvar-aika nirato yo viśvarūpaḥ ..॥ ......
(11) -marādhipo pi cakito Vrahmāpi yad-vismito devo Viṣṇurapi sphuṭaṁ vihasito Rudropi romāñcitaḥ। Uddāma-prasarat-prasanna-vahule yat-kīrtti-kallolinī-gambhīr-āmbhasi majja ......
(12) -pi saṁvodhita॥ Yad=durggamaṁ sarati dūrataraṁ durāpaṁ yac=cetasā। yaṁ lavdha ...... ta .... āsīt। sahasra .... sramavirāhana caturdasyām- ārambha-rāma iti yaḥ sphuṭatām=upetaḥ॥ Asyāṁ bhū ............
(13) -pā dharmmeṇa maryādayā rājya-Śribhir-alaṁkṛtāḥ punar-amī bhog-aikadā ...... Śrī-viśvāvidhe (?) eṣa kīrttana-kathā gīya ......
(14) । Kīrtti .... tvām vismayakara ...... āpi sauryyād=asau .... nta। Śrīr-api ...... ni...ddhi punar-īdriśī bhavati kiṁ Śrī Viśvarūp=oddhṛta-rekh-eva pratipa ......
​(15) yat-te..ādbhutā। asy-aiva .... Prapitāmahasya mahatīm-asthāpya kīrttiṁ ....... tataḥ sādhitaḥ। Uddhṛtārthi-nisargga-dharmma-nirato yo ......
(16) ...... siddhim-anayat-tām-eva kīrttim punaḥ॥ṁ Kim vrumaḥ ...... yasy-āsādhu-guṇasya nāsti mahataḥ ...... kinna ......
(17) rāśiḥ suviśṛtavayo yen-ākasmika-vismayena mukhar-ālokaḥ karttur-agri ...... nivasanaḥ sphurad-dhārāgāraṁ visṛja ......
(18) -vyāmvara-saṁcara-tṛptir-vvahu-manoja ......। praśamanaṁ surā-bhāṇḍaṁ jaladaḥ॥ kanakeśvara ...... jaladaḥ .... Śrī Viśvarūp-āvaro ......
(19) tya sadācarau suviditaḥ Śrī-satkulā .... sarvvaśaḥ satkulādṛto' kṣayavaṭo devo Vaṭeś-āhvayaḥ॥ Ity-ādyāḥ sumanonurūpa-racanā-ratnā ......
(20) -jñāṁ ca yaḥ। Yen-āty-adbhuta-vikramena tarasā Śrī-mad-Gaya-maṇḍale āsaṁsāram-udagra-dharmma-vijaya-stambhā iv-āropitaḥ॥ Ten-ā i ......
(21) -la visamaṁ nīhār-āvatārādbhutaṁ॥ Kirttiḥ Śveta-gabhasti-hasta-racite iti-rāja-tāṁ devasya Prapitā-mahasya mahatī Śrī-i ......
(22) -ti nāmadheya। Sattvaiva dhaninaḥ kimvā vahu vrumahe। kiṁ tv=īdṛg=yadi kirttanaṁ bhagavataḥ ken=āpi niṣpādita Śrī-Viśvāvi ......
(23) yaḥ svatvapa-mokṣa (?)। —yāvac-candra-divākarau surasarid-dhātrī nabho-maṇḍalaṁ। karttuṁ Kīrttikadamba {?) sva vijayī-Śrī-Viśvarūp-āhvaye ....
(24) gaṇitum-ālaṁkārito bhagavān bharttur-Vigraha-pāladeva-nṛpate rājyaśrīyaṁ vibhrataḥ। saṁprāpte tarasaiva pañch-gaṇite rajyasya samvatsare ......
(25) Viśvāditya-guṇ-otkṣepa prītis-timita-cetasā
(26) Praśastir-vvihitā c=aiṣā Vaidya-Śrī-Dharmmapāṇinā॥.
The original stone has suffered very much from the effects of weather so that it is almost impossible to decipher the central portions of the lines at the middle of the inscription. The only other known inscription of this king is the Bihar inscription of the twelfth year noticed for the first time by Cunningham. He states that it is inscribed in the pedestal of an image of Buddha and belonged to the Broadley collection. The contents of the Broadley collection, afterwards called the Bihar Museum, were added to those of the Indian Museum at the request of the Government of Bengal in 1895 and the collection was transferred to Calcutta under the supervision of the late Babu Pūrṇa Chandra Mukharji. But this inscription could not be traced in the Indian Museum either by the late Dr. Bloch or by his successors. Mention should be made in this connection of an inscription on a stone on which the present image of Gadādhara at Gayā now rests. It seems to have been discovered by the late Babu Pūrṇa Chandra Mukharji and pointed out by him to the late Dr. Bloch. As the image of Gadādhara cannot be moved without wounding the religious susceptibilities of the Hindu population of Gaya, only the first five lines could be copied:—
(1) Oṁ namo mārttaṇḍāya॥ Jāgartti yasmin-nudite prayāti c-āstantu śete ​janatā samastā। Trailokya dīpaṁ tam-ananta-mūrttim-avyāhatābhaṁ śaraṇaṁ prayāta॥ (1).
(2) S-eyaṁ vrahmapurī Gay-eti jagati khyātā svayaṁ vedhasā sthātuṁ vrahma-vidāṁ pur-īva ghaṭitā mokṣasya saukhyasya ca।
(3) Vrumaḥ kiñ-ca bhavanti yatra pitaraḥ pretālaya-vāsinaḥ pāda-spṛṣṭa-jala-pradāna-vidhinā nāk-āṅganā-nāyakāḥ॥ (2). Asyāṁ va-
(4) -bhūva purī vakragati dvijihva samrāḍ-bhujaṅga ripur-acyuta-pādasevī। Yo nāma viṣṇu-rathavad-dvijarāja-varyaḥ prītyā satāṁ ca Pa
(5) -ritoṣa iti prasiddhaḥ॥ Tasmād-vidheriva vahhūva ......
This inscription has been referred to the reign of Vigrahapāladeva because its writing resembles that of the Akṣayavaṭa inscription.
Nothing is known about the relations of Vigrahapāla III save his three sons Śūrapāla II, Mahīpāla II and Rāmapāla, all of whom succeeded him one after another. Successors and relations.The Rāmacarita mentions two uncles of Rāmapāla, Mahaṇa or Mathanadeva and his brother Suvarṇadeva, who belonged to the Rāṣṭrakūṭa family. So Vigrahapāla must have married another lady of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa family whose name has not come down to us. Rāmapāla was the son of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa princess and not of the Cedi princess Yauvanaśrī.
* ↑ Ind. Ant., Vol. I, pp. 127 and 227.
* ↑ J.A.S.B., N.S., Vol. VII, p 619.
* ↑ Epi. Ind., Vol. II, p. 465.
* ↑ J.A.S.B., 1892, pp. 80 & 83.
* ↑ Ind. Ant., Vol. XXI, p. 101, and J.A.S.B., 1892, p. 83, note 26.
* ↑ J.A.S.B., 1892, pp. 8—84, II. 23-24.
* ↑ Epi. Ind., Vol. III, p. 323.
* ↑ Mem. A.S.B., Vol. III, p. 36.
* ↑ Epi. Ind., Vol. App. p. 120, No. 733. Vol. VIII, App. II, p. 22, No. 11.
* ↑ Ann. Rep. on Epigraphy Madras, 1906-07, p. 871.
* ↑ J.A.S.B., N.S., Vol. V, p. 239.
* ↑ Vaṅgīya Sāhitya Parishad Patrikā, Vol. XVII, p. 235.
* ↑ Ibid., p. 235.
* ↑ J.A.S.B., Vol. LXV,.1895, p. 250.
* ↑ Mem. A.S.B., Vol. III, p 55.
* ↑ J.A.S.B., Vol. LXII, 1893, p. 250.
* ↑ As. Res., Vol. IX, p. 204.
* ↑ Proc. A.S.B , 1881, p. 98.
* ↑ Ind. Ant., Vol. XIV, p. 165, note 17.
* ↑ Cat of Sans. MSS. in the Durbar Liby., Nepal. Hist. Intro., p. 18, and No. 1079 (kha), p. 34.
* ↑ Epi. Ind., Vol. II, p. 300.
* ↑ Bendall's Cat. of Buddhist Sans. MSS. in the Univ. Liby., Cambridge, p. 101.
* ↑ Proc. A.S.B., 1899, p. 69.
* ↑ Cunningham, Arch. Surv. Rep,, Vol. III, p. 122, No. 9, pl. XXXVII, No. 5.
* ↑ J.A.S.B., Vol. IV, p. 106 No. IV, pl. VI.
* ↑ Ibid., 1893, Pt. I, p. 77.
* ↑ Arch. Surv. Rep., Vol. III, p. 123.
* ↑ Ind. Ant., Vol. XIV, p. 105, note 17.
* ↑ Epi. Ind., Vol. II, p. 185.
* ↑ Ibid., p. 11.
* ↑ Ind. Ant., Vol. XVIII, p. 217.
* ↑ Jl. Bud. Text Soc., Vol. I, p. 9.
* ↑ J.A.S.B., 1900, pt. I, p. 192.
* ↑ Jl. Bud. Text Soc., Vol. I, p. 9, note.
* ↑ J.A.S.B., 1900, pt. I, p. 191, note 1.
* ↑ Proc. A.S.B., 1902, pp. 66-67.
* ↑ va added afterwards.
* ↑ Or—Kautaka—
* ↑ Read—manalpa-dānam=āvirbhavat—
* ↑ Read nisarga—
* ↑ The last syllable of this line is superfluous.
* ↑ J.A.S.B., 1900, pt. I, p. 184.
* ↑ Bendall's Cat. Skt. MSS. in the Univy. Liby., Cambridge, p. 175. No. 1688.
* ↑ Cakrapāṇi, Ed by Śivadāsa Sena, Calcutta, b. s. 1302, p. 407.
* ↑ Epi. Ind., Vol. I, pp. 220, 326, 130, 132.
* ↑ Ibid., Vol. II, p. 192.
* ↑ Bühler—Über das Lebeu des Jaina Mouchs Hema-Chandra, p. 69.
* ↑ Vikramanka deva-carita, I, 102 3, XVIII, 93.
* ↑ Mem. A.S.B., Vol. III, p. 22.
* ↑ Ind. Ant., Vol. XXI, p. 97.
* ↑ Ibid., Vol. XIV, p. 166.
* ↑ Ibid., Vol. XXXVIII, p. 240.
* ↑ Ibid., Vol. XIV, p. 168.
* ↑ Ind. Ant., Vol. XIV, p. 121, No. 7.
* ↑ Annual Report of the Archl. Survey, E. Circle., 1901-2, p. 2.