Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Rashtrakutas and their Times c23.s2: Section B : Literature

The Rāṣṭrakūṭas and their Times c23.s2

Language
English

Section B : Literature

c23.s2.1

A detailed discussion about the dates of the various authors of our period, or an enquiry into the problem connected with the authorship of some of the works composed in it, is obviously not within the scope of the present work. The reader will have to consult the standard works on literary history for that purpose. The general condition of the literature of our period, its main features, the principal writers of the age and their contributions, and how far they were influenced by the spirit of the age would be the main points that will engage the attention of a general historian, and these only will be discussed in the present section.

c23.s2.2

²³ I. A., XII, p. 253.

c23.s2.3

²⁴ *Ibid*, X, p. 129.

c23.s2.4

²⁵ I. A., VIII, p. 185.

c23.s2.5

²⁶ E. I., IV, p. 180.

c23.s2.6

The main energy of the schools and colleges described in the last section was devoted to the study and cultivation of Sankrit; the Canarese literature had begun to flourish in Karnatak, but it is doubtful whether it had reached the stage when it could be recognised as a subject of study in secondary schools and colleges. As to Maharashtra, the Marathi language itself does not make its appearance in epigraphical records till the end of our period:(27) there could hardly have existed much literature in it. Even the late Mr. V. K. Rajwade has admitted that there was hardly any cultured literature in it till the end of the 10th century A.D. (28)

c23.s2.7

A glance at the inscriptions of our period is sufficient to indicate the firm hold of the kāvya or classical style of writing upon the Deccan of our period. All the merits and defects of that style are reflected in our epigraphs. The composers of our grants were no doubt poets of mediocre ability, but they had carefully studied standard works of the classical Sanskrit literature. Kielhorn has shown how the poets, who have composed the s'āsanas of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas were greatly indebted for their expressions to works like the Vāsavadattā of Subandhu and Kādambarī and Harshacharit of Bāṇa. (29)

c23.s2.8

27. Rajwade's contention that the language existed in the 5th century A.D., is untenable; the inscriptions he refers to are either forged or do not contain any Marathi passages.
28. Rajwade, Jnyanes'vari', Introduction, p. 62.

c23.s2.9

The author of the Kadba plates of Govinda III (30) imitates in the prose portion of the record the style of Bāṇa. The general impression left on our mind after a perusal of the epigraphical poetry is that if it is not of the first order, the reason is rather the lack of Pratibhā or poetic genius than that of abhyāsa or practice according to approved model. It is further interesting to note that most of our epigraphical poetry is in the Vaidarbhī style, the Gauḍī hardly makes its appearance. The significant fact would show that the names like Vaidarbhī, Gauḍī and Pāñchālī, that were given to various poetic styles owed their origin to actual literary fashions of the provinces concerned.

c23.s2.10

Modern research has succeeded in determining the dates of several writers in Sanskrit literature, but it has not been equally successful in discovering their home provinces. Kumārila, Śankara, Sarvajnātman and Vāchaspati in the realm of philosophy, Lalla and his pupil Āryabhaṭṭa II in the sphere of astronomy, and Kāmandaka, and probably Śukra (31) in the domain of the political science flourished in our period. But some of these certainly did not belong to our province, and the home of others is not known; so a discussion about them is hardly relevant in the present work. The same is the case with most of the later Smritis and Puranas. It has been already shown in several places in chapter XIII how the theories and practices recommended in these works had a remarkable hold on the Deccan of our period. It is clear that the Smritis and Puranas of our age were in close sympathy with it, and that the two were mutually influencing each other.

c23.s2.11

³⁰ E. I., IV, p. 340.

c23.s2.12

³¹ The reference to guns and gun-powder in this book may only show that some portions in it are interpolations. The book as a whole seems to be not much later than our age.

c23.s2.13

It was during our period that the literature on poetics flourished luxuriantly in the beautiful valley of Kashmir. The rugged Deccan had, however, hardly any contribution to make to that department. The *Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa* of Bhoja and the *Kāvyānuśāsana* of Hemachandra belong to a later period and are besides mere compilations. The *Kavirājamārga* of Amoghavarsha shows that works of poetics were studied in the Deccan during our period, for the work is mainly based on the *Kāvyādarśa* of Daṇḍin;³² but no Deccanese writer came forward with any distinctive contribution of his own to that science.

c23.s2.14

³² E. I., IX, p. 28.

c23.s2.15

Hindu Sanskrit writers, having any compositions of permanent value to their credit, are indeed few in our period. The colophon of the Benares edition of the *Karpūramañjarī* of Rājaśekhara describes the author as the crest jewel of Mahārāṣṭra, but this province can hardly claim that poet since he spent most of his life at Kanauj or Tripuri. Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar has shown that Trivikrama, the author of the *Nalachampū*, is identical with the Trivikrama, who has composed the Begumra plate of Indra III, dated 915 A.D.³³ The *Nalachampū* is the earliest of the extant champūs, and therefore, the Deccan may perhaps claim to be the first in that field. The *Kavirahasya* of Halāyudha was composed in the reign of Kṛṣṇa III. The poem is really a *dhātupāṭha* explaining the conjugational peculiarities of roots having the same form, but the verses also contain a eulogy of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa emperor Kṛṣṇa III.³³ The work, therefore, belongs to the class of *Bhaṭṭikāvya* and *Rāvaṇārjunīya*. The *Udayasundarīkathā* of Soḍhala, a Kāyastha from Valabhi, was composed towards the close of our period under the patronage of Mummunirāja, a king of Konkan.³⁴ These are the only Hindu Sanskrit works that can be undisputedly ascribed to the Deccan of our period. The output is indeed poor both in quantity and quality.

c23.s2.16

³³ Winternitz, *Geschichte*, III, p. 72; B. G. I., ii, p. 208.

c23.s2.17

³⁴ Keith, *History of Sanskrit Literature*, p. 136.

c23.s2.18

Many Rāṣṭrakūṭa emperors like Amoghavarṣa I, Kṛṣṇa and Indra III were either themselves Jains or patrons of that religion; the same was the case with many of their feudatories and officers as shown in chapter XIII.³⁵ It is, therefore, no wonder that the contribution of Jainism to literature should have been considerable. Haribhadra flourished by the middle of the 8th century A.D., but his works cannot be considered here as his province is not known. Samantabhadra, the author of the Āptamīmānsā, which contains a most interesting exposition of the Syādvāda, flourished before our period, but several commentaries were written on his work in the Deccan from the middle of the 8th century A.D. onwards. Akalankadeva's commentary Aṣṭas'ati was written early in the Rāṣṭrakūṭa period. S'ravana-Belgola inscription No. 67 refers to Akalankadeva as describing his own greatness to Sāhasatunga who, it is conjectured, may have been Dantidurga. There is a tradition to the effect that Akalankadeva himself was a son of Kṛṣṇa I,³⁶ but more evidence would be required to accept it as historical. Vidyānanda, the author of Aṣṭasahasrī, which is a more exhaustive commentary on the Āptamīmānsā, flourished a little later. He is mentioned in S'ravana Belgola inscriptions.³⁷

c23.s2.19

³⁵ Ante, pp. 310-4.

c23.s2.20

³⁶ Peterson's Report, No. 2, p. 79.

c23.s2.21

³⁷ E. C., II, No. 254.

c23.s2.22

The Jain contribution to logic in our period is not inconsiderable. Māṇikyanandin, who flourished in the latter half of the 8th century is the author of a work on logic called Parīkṣāmukhasūtra,³⁸ which was commented upon by Prabhācandra in the first half of the 9th century. Besides writing this commentary which is named as Prameyakāmalamārtaṇḍa this writer has also written *Nyāyakumudachandrodaya*. Another Jain writer on logic of this period is Mallavādin, who was probably the founder of a Jain Digambara monastery at Naosari which is no longer in existence. The Surat plates of Karkka Suvarṇavarsha which I am editing, (E. I., XXI), record a grant to his des ciple’s des ciple given in 821 A.D. This author wrote a commentary called *Dharmottaratippaṇaka* on the *Nyāyabinduṭīkā* of Dharmottarāchārya.³⁹ That a book on logic written by a Buddhist should have been commented upon by a Jain is quite in consonance with the spirit of harmony that prevailed in our period.

c23.s2.23

³⁸ Vidyabhushna, A History of Indian Logic, p. 179.

c23.s2.24

³⁹ Ibid, pp. 194-5.

c23.s2.25

Quite a galaxy of Jain writers flourished in the court of the Jain emperor Amoghavarsha I, who was well known for several centuries as a great patron of literature.⁴⁰ Jinasena, his spiritual preceptor, is the author of *Harivans'a*, which was finished in 783 A.D. He has placed the workers in the field of Ancient Indian history under great obligation by mentioning the contemporary kings that flourished in that year in the colophon of this work. He did not live to finish his *Adipurāṇa*, which had to be completed by his des ciple Guṇachandra, who was the spiritual preceptor of Lokāditya, the governor of Banavasi 12000.⁴¹ The *Adipurāṇa* is a Jain work dealing with the lives of Jain Tīrthankaras and saints. In his *Pārs'vābhyudaya* Jinasena has performed the wonderful feat of utilising each line of the love-poem *Meghadūta* for narrating the life of the Jain saint Pārśva. The concluding line of each verse in Jinasena’s poem has been borrowed from the successive stanzas of the *Meghadūta*. The *Amoghavṛtti* of S'ākaṭāyāna,⁴² a work on grammar, and the *Gaṇitasārasangraha* of Vīrāchārya,⁴³ a work on mathematics, were also composed in the reign of Amoghavarsha I. The *Kavirājamārga*, the first work in the Canarese on poetics, has been attributed to this emperor, but whether he was himself its author or merely its inspirer, is still a matter of controversy.⁴⁴ The authorship of the *Pras'nottaramālā* is also in dispute, as it has been variously attributed to S'ankarāchārya, Vimala, and Amoghavarsha I. The colophon of the Tibetan translation of this booklet shows, as Dr. F. W. Thomas has pointed out, that Amoghavarsha was believed to be its author at the time it was rendered into the Tibetan.⁴⁵ It is, therefore, very likely that he was its real author.

c23.s2.26

⁴⁰ I. A., 1904, p. 197.

c23.s2.27

⁴¹ I. A., XII, p. 216.

c23.s2.28

⁴² I. A., 1914, pp. 205 ff.

c23.s2.29

⁴³ Winternitz, Geschichte, III, p. 575.

c23.s2.30

⁴⁴ I. A., 1904, pp. 199.

c23.s2.31

⁴⁵ J. B. B. R. A. S., XXII, pp. 80 ff.

c23.s2.32

Gangadhāra, the capital of a feudatory Chālukya house in southern Karnatak, was a centre of considerable literary activity by the middle of the 10th century. It was there that Somadeva flourished and wrote his works *Yasastilaka* and *Nitivākyāmṛta*⁴⁶. The first of these works, though sectarian in purpose is of no inconsiderable literary merit; it belongs to the variety of the *Champū* and its author shows considerable skill in the treatment of his theme. The second work is on the science of politics; it has, however, hardly much independent value as it is largely based on the *Artha-s'āstra* of Kauṭalya. The work is, however, almost entirely free from any sectarian tinge and is written from a much higher moral point than the *Arthas'astra* of Kauṭalya.

c23.s2.33

⁴⁶ *Yas'astilakachampū*, p. 419.

c23.s2.34

Karnatak was a great stronghold of Jainism in our period and the Jain authors had not forgotten that the founder of their religion had preached in the vernacular. We, therefore, find a number of Canarese authors in the 10th century, most of whom were Jains. The earliest and foremost among these is Pampa, who was born in 902 A.D. Though a native of Āndhrades'a he became the *ādikavi* of the Canarese literature. His *Ādipurāṇa*, which was finished in 941 A.D., is a Jain work, but his *Vikramārjunavijaya* is a more or less historical work, where he glorifies his patron Arikesarin II as Arjuna.⁴⁷ It is from this work that we get valuable information about the northern campaigns of Indra III in which his feudatory, Arikesarin II, had participated. Asaṅga and Jinachandra are other Canarese writers of this period, who are referred to by Ponna, but whose works are not yet forthcoming. Ponna himself flourished in the third quarter of the 10th century and is said to have been given the title of 'Ubhayakavichakravartin' 'Supreme among the poets of both (i. e. Sanskrit and Canarese) the languages' by Kṛṣṇa III, on account of his proficiency as a poet both in Sanskrit and Canarese. *S'antipurāṇa* is his principal work.⁴⁸ Chāmuṇḍarāya, a Jain general and minister of the Jain ruler Mārasimha II, was the author of the *Chāmuṇḍapurāṇa* which was composed in the 3rd quarter of the 10th century.⁴⁹ Raṇṇa, another Canarese writer of the 10th century, was born in 949 A.D. His *Ajitatīrthankapurāṇa* was finished in 993 A.D.⁵⁰ That Jain religious works of our period should have been mostly composed in the form of Puranas shows the immense influence and popularity of these works in the Deccan of our period.

c23.s2.35

⁴⁷ Karṇātakabhāṣābhūṣaṇa, Introduction, pp. XIII-XIV.

c23.s2.36

⁴⁸ Ibid, p. XV.

c23.s2.37

⁴⁹ E. I., V, P. 175.

c23.s2.38

⁵⁰ E. I., VI p., 72.

c23.s2.39

It is interesting to note that there is hardly any output of Prakrit or Marathi literature during our period. Dhanapāla's Prakrit dictionary, *Paīyalachchhī*, was composed in our period but the author lived in Dhārā, and not in the Deccan, and his work being a dictionary, can hardly come within the category of literature. The Marathi language existed in our period, for the earliest composition in it seems to go back to the 3rd quarter of the 10th century A.D.⁵¹ There is, however, no Marathi literature belonging to our age.⁵² Marathi was not the mother tongue of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas and Jainism, which had given an impetus to Canarese literature, was not very strong in Maharashtra. It is, therefore, no surprise that there should have been no output of the Marathi literature during our period.

c23.s2.40

⁵¹ See Bhave: Mahārāṣṭra-sahitya, Chap. I. It may be, however, pointed out that the inscription 'Śrī-chāmuṇḍarāye karaviyale' on the Gommatesvara statue may not be contemporary with Chāmuṇḍarāya.

c23.s2.41

⁵² The Marathi translation of the *Panchatantra* seems to be slightly more archaic than the *Dnanes'vari*, but it cannot go back to our period. See Joshi, *Marāthi Bhāshechī Ghaṭanā*, p. 58.

Linked texts (36)