Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c15.s2.t13: Yaśovarman's successors

History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c15.s2.t13

Language
English

Yaśovarman's successors

c15.s2.t13.1

We are left to grope in the dark after Yaśovarman except for the uncertain light thrown by Jain sources, which allege that he was succeeded by his son Āma, born of Yaśodevī during her temporary exile due to the machinations of a co-wife. The *Bappabhaṭṭacarita* and the *Prabandhakoṣa* indicate that Āma held his court at Gopagiri (Gwalior), but according to the *Prabhāvakacarita* he, like his father Yaśovarman, reigned at Kanauj and not altogether at Gopagiri. Whatever be the truth, the importance of the tradition probably lies in showing that the region of Gwalior formed part of the dominions of Kanauj at this time. It seems that Jainism occupied the supreme position in Āma's heart, and he regarded Bappabhaṭṭa as his spiritual *guru*. He is also represented as going to Jain holy places like Cambay (Stambatīrtha) Vimalagiri (Palitana), Raivatādri (Girnar), and Prabhāsa (Patan) etc. Further, he is said to have been in constant rivalry with one Dharma, king of Lakṣamaṇāvatī, but the details are wrapped in utter confusion. Āma was succeeded by his son, the immoral Dunduka, who, according to the *Prabhāvakacarita* (XI, 759), was murdered by his son Bhoja. After this event we have no information whatsoever. We cannot give much credence to these tales based on tradition and more concerned with religious edification than with the narration of sober facts of history with some respect for chronology. But as there is nothing to contradict them, we may with S. P. Pandit say for the present that "all the credit that the Jaina stories have a right to claim is that king Āma was perhaps the son of Yaśovarman, that Dunduka was Āma's son, and that Bhoja was the son of Dunduka."¹ None of them achieved anything of note, and one was even prematurely murdered. We may, therefore, well believe that, if they really had historical existence, the length of their combined reigns must have been of extremely short duration—say between 15 and 20 years.

c15.s2.t13.2

¹ *Gauḍavaho*, Introduction, p. clix. See however, J. B. B. R. A. S., Vol. III, N. S. 1927, pp. 101-33, where Dr. Kṛṣṇasvāmī Aiyangar stoutly maintains the credibility of the *Bappabhaṭṭacarita* and equates Āmarāja with Nāgāvaloka.

c15.s2.t13.3

THE ĀYUDHAS

Linked texts (3)