Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v2.c15.s3.t9: Telugu

The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v2.c15.s3.t9

Language
English

Contents

Telugu

v2.c15.s3.t9.1

Telugu literature appears to have suffered an eclipse for nearly a century (A.D. 1060–1160) after Nannayabhaṭṭa; for no writer who left his impress on the annals of our literature is known to have flourished during this period. Literary activity, however, did not completely cease. The evidence of inscriptions, several of which were composed partly or wholly in Telugu verse, indicates that poetry was still cultivated, and that the rulers and magnates of the age still cherished learning and extended their patronage to men of letters. Such documents frequently allude to the feudatory princes and their ministers as patrons and protectors of poets; but they seldom mention the names of any individual writers or the literary compositions by means of which they rose to distinction and fame. Occasionally, however, the name of a Telugu poet does occur here and there as the author of an inscription. Bhīmaya Paṇḍa, who is mentioned in an epigraph at Chēbrōlu in the Guntur district dated Ś. 1067 (A.D. 1145), is said to have been a poet capable of producing verses both in the *mārga* and the *dēśi* styles as the ancients had done. He was probably the author who composed the *praśasti* embodied in the record.¹ Īśvara Bhaṭṭōpādhyāya, son of Mayūrarāya, who was employed by the Malyālas to compose the family *praśasti* incorporated in their Bōthpūr inscription, was a famous poet. He is said to have been proficient in Pāṇinian grammar, and skilled in *śabda-vidya* (philology) and the knowledge of *vichitra-kavitva* (ornate poetry). Though his compositions are mostly in Sanskrit verse, they are interspersed with long passages in Telugu prose which show that he was as great an adept in the vernacular as he was in the classical language.² Inscriptions in Telugu verse, though mostly anonymous compositions, demand particular attention on account both of their literary merit and of their linguistic, grammatical, and prosodical peculiarities. Some of them, for instance, the Gūḍūr inscription of the time of Bēta II, the Karimnagar inscription of Gaṁgādhara, the Upparapalle inscription of Kāṭa, the Koṇidena inscription of Ōpilisiddhi and the Tāḷḷa-Prodduṭūr inscription of Jagatāpi Gaṅgayadēva,¹ display poetical qualities of a high order and may be regarded as excellent specimens of the epigraphical literature of the Kākatīya period.

v2.c15.s3.t9.2

¹ *SII*, vi, 103.

v2.c15.s3.t9.3

² *Corpus*, 50, 51, and 52.

v2.c15.s3.t9.4

¹ Corpus, 23 and 36; HAS, No. 3; SII, vi, 628, and the Bhārati, vol. xv, part i, pp. 157-60.

v2.c15.s3.t9.5.1

Itihāsas. (i) The Rāmāyaṇa. The intellectual ferment caused by new religious movements like Vaiṣṇavism and Vīra-Śaivism gave a fresh impetus to Telugu literature, and works of considerable literary value began to make their appearance in a continuous stream from the last quarter of the thirteenth century A.D. onwards, if not even earlier. The two great national epics, the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata, naturally claimed the first attention of the Telugu writers. Several works on the Rāmāyaṇa were produced. These fall, according to the metres employed in their composition, into two classes; the padya- and the dvipada-kāvyas. The padya-kāvyas, whether on the Rāmāyaṇa or any other subject, were not, with the single exception of Tikkana's Nirvachan-Ōttara Rāmāyaṇam, written, as is suggested by their class-name, entirely in verse; they are champūs or mixed compositions in which verses in various metres excluding, of course, the dvipada, and gadyas, that is, ornate prose passages, are employed according to the whim of the author. Mantri Bhāskara, the grandfather of Tikkana, who must have flourished about the close of the twelfth century A.D., was probably the first writer to compose a poem in Telugu on the theme to the Rāmāyaṇa.

v2.c15.s3.t9.5.2

This belief is based on the statement of Tikkana in the introduction to his Nirvachan-Ōttara Rāmāyaṇam that the learned public might look on his poem with an indulgent eye, if not on account of its intrinsic merit, yet in consideration of his kinship to Mantri Bhāskara, his own grandfather, who had been famous for the excellence of his poetry.² The fact that Tikkana chose the Uttara-kāṇḍa, leaving out the first six kāṇḍas, which constitute the Rāmāyaṇa proper, as the theme of his Nirvachan-Ōttara Rāmāyaṇam, coupled with the statement referred to above, lends colour to the belief that Mantri Bhāskara had composed a poem on the Rāmāyaṇa consisting of six kāṇḍas and that Tikkana completed his grandfather's book by adding the Uttara-kāṇḍa to it as a supplement. This poem, if it was, as is averred by tradition, actually written by Mantri Bhāskara, is now no longer extant. It is not, however, improbable that parts of it are incorporated with the later Bhāskara Rāmāyaṇam of the fourteenth century A.D. Of the surviving Telugu works on the Rāmāyaṇa, Tikkana's Nirvachan Ōttara-Rāmāyaṇam is no doubt the earliest. It must have been produced about A.D. 1260, since it was dedicated to King Manuma Siddhi II of Nellore, who ruled from A.D. 1248 to 1263, and alludes to certain historical events which took place subsequent to A.D. 1250.

v2.c15.s3.t9.5.3

The poem, which is divided into ten āśvāsas or cantos, deals briefly with the subject-matter of the Sanskrit Uttara-kāṇḍa excepting the final episode dealing with the niryāṇa or the death of Rāma. The poem is still popular, and is eagerly read by the learned who hold it in high esteem. Though it exhibits all the characteristic features of Tikkana's poetic art, it is considered immature when compared with the poet's *Mahābhārata*. The style, no doubt, is terse and dignified, the diction simple and homely, the imagery graceful and charming, and the literary craftsmanship superb. Nevertheless, the ripeness of style, the grandeur of conception, and the sublimity of thought so characteristic of his *Mahābhārata* are little apparent in this poem. Next in point of time comes the well-known *Bhāskara-Rāmāyaṇam*, a composite work which contains the productions of no less than five authors, Mallikārjunabhaṭṭa, son of Bhāskara, Kumāra Rudradēva, son of Māraya, Bhāskara, Huḷakki Bhāskara, and Ayyalārya, a descendant of the celebrated Śākalya Mallubhaṭṭa. Contrary to the belief still generally held, these poets were not contemporaries; nor did they cooperate with one another in a joint literary enterprise. Of the five, Ayyalārya, the last mentioned, lived at Dēvarakoṇḍa in the court of the Velama prince Peda-Vēdagiri Nāyaḍu at the beginning of the fifteenth century A.D.;

v2.c15.s3.t9.5.4

he completed the *Yuddha-kāṇḍa* of the *Rāmāyaṇam* which had been left unfinished by Huḷakki Bhāskara at the instance of his patron as stated in the majority of the palm-leaf manuscripts of the work. Kumāra Rudradēva son of Māraya was, no doubt, identical with Māraya Sāhiṇi Rudradēva, that is, Rudradēva, the son of Māraya Sāhiṇi or Sāhiṇi Māra, mentioned as a subordinate of king Pratāparudra in an inscription dated Ś. 1233 Virōdhikṛit (A.D. 1311) at Nevalikallu in the Sattenapalle *tāluk* of the Guntur district.¹ The time at which the other three poets flourished is not so definitely known, but there is reason to believe that Mallikārjunabhaṭṭa, the author of the *Bāla-*, *Kishkindha-* and *Sundara-kāṇḍas*, lived earlier than Kumāra Rudradēva and his father Sāhiṇi Māra. It is generally believed that the *Bhāskara Rāmāyaṇam* was dedicated by its authors to Sāhiṇi Māra. The internal evidence indicates that this belief is not well founded. An examination of the dedicatory verses at the beginning and end of each of the three *kāṇḍas* composed by Mallikārjunabhaṭṭa shows that he dedicated them originally to the god Śiva, but that later someone attempted to re-dedicate them to Sāhiṇi Māra by interpolating certain verses. Who the person was who thus attempted to re-dedicate them, is not difficult to discover. The *Ayōdhya-kāṇḍa* is ascribed both in the printed text and in the majority of the palm-leaf manuscripts to Kumāra Rudradēva;

v2.c15.s3.t9.5.5

but several manuscripts attribute its authorship to Bhāskara, the author of the *Araṇya-kāṇḍa*. We find in the colophon of the *Ayōdhya-kāṇḍa* in these manuscripts the *praśasti* and the name of Bhāskara; moreover the dedicatory verses at the end are similar to those in the *Araṇya-kāṇḍa* with *vibhakty-antas* instead of the usual *sambuddhi* (vocative). In addition to this evidence, there occurs also at the end, as in the case of *Araṇya-kāṇḍa*, a verse in the *sīsa* metre describing briefly the contents of the *kāṇḍa* and the religious merit accruing to the persons who should read it. From this it is clear that the *Ayōdhyā-kāṇḍa*, like the *Araṇya-kāṇḍa*, was composed by Bhāskara, and subsequently under circumstances not at present known the dedicatory verses as well as the colophon of the former were altered by Kumāra Rudradēva so as to make it appear his own composition, and he then re-dedicated it to his father, Sāhiṇi Māra. The clumsy attempt to interpolate dedicatory verses addressing Sāhiṇi Māra in the other *kāṇḍas*, especially the *Kiṣkindha* and the *Sundara*, must be attributed to over-zealous scribes and redactors of later ages who were profoundly influenced by the apocryphal legend of Sāhiṇi Māra, according to which Bhāskara, being incensed with the king on account of the preference shown by that prince to Ranganātha, the author of the *Dvipada-Rāmāyaṇam*, dedicated his poem in disgust to the king's groom Sāhiṇi Māra.

v2.c15.s3.t9.5.6

It is obvious that the *Bhāskara-Rāmāyaṇam* as it has come down to us is a composite work to which several writers, who lived at different times, contributed. However, it may be regarded as the product of the Kākatīya age, since all the poets concerned, with the exception of Ayyalārya, flourished during that period.

v2.c15.s3.t9.6

² Nir, i, 12.

v2.c15.s3.t9.7

¹ *AR*, 307 of 1934-5.

v2.c15.s3.t9.8

The *Bhāskara-Rāmāyaṇam* is not a translation of the great Sanskrit epic of Vālmīki but is a free and independent rendering of the story of Rāma in the Telugu language. The authors of the work no doubt followed Vālmīki’s narrative closely, but they retold it in their own fashion without lifting any passages directly from his poem. The style of the poem is of course not uniform, since it varies with the change of author from *kāṇḍa* to *kāṇḍa*, but it is dignified and majestic throughout, eminently in keeping with the epic grandeur of its theme. From a literary and artistic standpoint, the *Araṇya-kāṇḍa* of Bhāskara is considered by competent critics to be the best. The style is severe and terse; the language is simple and direct, and is free from long Sanskrit compounds, and from excessive ornamentation; the flow of the verse is natural and spontaneous, and the narrative proceeds smoothly unclogged by superfluous descriptions. Mallikārjunabhaṭṭa’s style is more Sanskritic and ornate. He is at his best in the *Kiṣkindha-* and the *Sundara-kāṇḍas*. Huḷakki Bhāskara’s style is vigorous and dignified; the flow of his verse is spontaneous; his narrative is direct and the description of battle-scenes is spirited and well suited to the theme. Ayyalārya’s poetry bears close resemblance to that of Huḷakki Bhāskara whose unfinished *Yuddha-kāṇḍa* he completed. He seems to have made a deliberate attempt to imitate the style of his predecessor, so as to produce the impression that the whole *kāṇḍa* was the composition of a single writer. In this he was eminently successful. Ayyalārya was indeed a great poet. The fact that he was able to compose more than half of the *Yuddha-kāṇḍa* (1,556 out of 2,690 verses) in a manner quite indistinguishable from that of Huḷakki Bhāskara bears ample testimony to his lofty poetical genius. Though several *Padya-Rāmāyaṇas*, both adaptations as well as literal translations of Vālmīki’s great poem, have been written during the succeeding centuries, yet none can approach in grandeur, artistic perfection, and literary excellence the *Bhāskara-Rāmāyaṇam*, which justly retains to this day its position as one of the great classics of the Telugu language.

v2.c15.s3.t9.9.1

The Kākatīya age also saw the birth of another great Rāmāyaṇa classic in the *dvipada* metre called the *Ranganātha-Rāmāyaṇam*. The *dvipada* or two-footed verse, consisting of two lines knit together by *yati* and *prāsa* so as to form a unit like the English couplet, appears to have been perfected during this age. It is not definitely known how and when the *dvipada* was at first evolved; but judging from the occurrence of analogous metres like the *taruvōja* in the inscriptions of Guṇaga Vijayāditya (A.D. 848-92),¹ it is not improbable that it came into vogue about the same time, although no example of a *dvipada* composition anterior to the fourteenth century A.D. has come down to us. No trace of it is to be found in the literature or inscriptions. It is a *dēśi* or indigenous metre eminently suitable for singing and was largely employed by the propagandists of various religious sects to spread their respective doctrines among the masses, who were mostly illiterate. The authorship and the date of the composition of the poem have long been subjects of controversy. Tradition ascribes it to a poet by the name of Ranganātha whose name it bears. In fact, there flourished at the beginning of the fourteenth century a Vaiṣṇava poet called Ranganātha, who, being defeated in religious disputation by the famous Vīra Śaiva divine, Pālkuriki Sōmanātha, enrolled himself as the disciple of the latter and embraced the Vīra Śaiva faith.

v2.c15.s3.t9.9.2

In the prologue and the colophons of the poem it is, however, stated that it is the composition of a certain Buddharāja who (in the prologue of his poem) traces his descent through Viṭṭhala, Buddha, and Rudra, his father and grandfather and an unnamed great grandfather respectively, to Kāṭa of the Gōna family. Though several chieftains of this family figure in the inscriptions of the Kākatīya monarchs as their feudatories and subordinates, very little is really known about Buddharāja and his ancestors. It is perhaps not unlikely that the Gōna Kāṭa, one of the ministers of Gaṇapatidēva who is mentioned in an epigraph at Kāñchī dated in the 5th regnal year (? A.D. 1255) of Allun Tikka Mahārāja Gaṇḍagōpāladēva,² is identical with our Gōna Kāṭa; and that Gōna Buddhaya, who is said in an inscription dated Ś. 1198 Dhātri (A.D. 1277) at Bōthpūr in the Mahboobnagar District to have been the father of Malyāla Guṇḍa's wife Kuppāmbikā,³ was in fact one of the two Buddharājas of the *Ranganātha-Rāmāyaṇam*. However this may be, there can be no doubt that the poem is a genuine product of the Kākatīya period, and the time of its composition may be assigned roughly to the middle of the fourteenth century A.D. The *Ranganātha-Rāmāyaṇam* is the greatest of the Telugu *dvipada-kāvyas* and though it follows fairly closely the story of the *Rāmāyaṇa* as narrated by Vālmiki, it includes some episodes which find no place in his great epic. Buddharāja is indeed a great poet.

v2.c15.s3.t9.9.3

The uniform excellence and perfection of the style bear ample testimony to his consummate artistic skill and his mastery over the poetic art. His *dvipadas* couched in mellifluous language glide along with ease and speed, and the narrative moves with majestic grandeur from episode to episode. In its gracefulness of expression, in the charm and the beauty of the imagery and in the aptness of illustration, there is hardly another *dvipada-kāvya* in Telugu which can bear comparison with Buddharāja’s *Ranganātha-Rāmāyaṇam*. Closely associated with this work is the *Uttara-kāṇḍa* of Kācha and Viṭṭhala, sons of Buddharāja, who composed this poem in order to complete the work of their father. But the *Uttara-kāṇḍa*, judged from a literary standpoint, must be considered far inferior to the *Ranganātha-Rāmāyaṇam* to which it serves as a supplement. In addition to these, the *Viddikūchi-Rāmāyaṇam*, so called evidently after its author Viddi Kūchi, comprising six *kāṇḍas* now no longer extant, deserves mention, since it appears to have been a composition of the *Yakṣagāna* type suited especially for singing and recitation.

v2.c15.s3.t9.10

¹ *Bhārati* v, 473-84

v2.c15.s3.t9.11

² *AR*, No 608 of 1919

v2.c15.s3.t9.12

³ *Corpus*, 50.

v2.c15.s3.t9.13

(ii) The *Mahābhārata*. The Kākatīya age also saw the completion of the *Andhra Mahābhārata*, begun and partly composed by Nannayabhaṭṭa, the court poet of the Eastern Chālukya Rājarāja Narēndra in the eleventh century A.D. The work had remained incomplete from the time of its composition until it was taken up and finished by Tikkana Sōmayāji, the minister and the poet laureate of the Telugu Chōḷa king Manuma Siddhi II of Nellore, two centuries later, about the middle of the thirteenth century A.D. Tikkana Sōmayāji, justly called the *Kavi-Brahma*, that is ‘Brahma (or the creator) among the poets’, is the greatest of the Telugu poets, and his *Mahābhārata*—fifteen out of the eighteen *parvas* from the *Virāṭa-parvam* to the *Svargārōhaṇa-parvam*—is universally regarded as the grandest poem in the language. Though generally believed to be a translation of Vyāsa’s great Sanskrit epic, competent critics hold that notwithstanding its close connexion with Vyāsa’s work, it is not a translation but an independent poem far superior in its beauty and artistic quality to the Sanskrit work. Although Tikkana, like his great predecessor Nannayabhaṭṭa, followed generally the theme of the Sanskrit *Mahābhārata*, he did not adhere to its text. He never hesitated to omit, abridge, or even frequently to expand the Sanskrit original and develop in his own way episodes which aroused his interest, displaying originality and charm so that his work reads like an independent poem recounting the story of the *Mahābhārata* rather than a translation. The *Andhra Mahābhārata* is indeed a great masterpiece of Telugu literature. Tikkana’s language is much simpler than that of Nannayabhaṭṭa. Though a Sanskrit scholar of considerable erudition, he manifests a distinct partiality for simple and homely Telugu words, avoiding the excessive use of long Sanskritic compounds and phrases otherwise favoured so much by Telugu writers in all ages. His style is remarkable for its flexibility, varying according to the theme from the sublime majesty of the *Virāṭa-* and the *Udyōga-parvas* to the *sūtra*-like terseness of the Śanti- and the Anusāsanika. Tikkana is very economical in his use of the language. Simple *dēśya* terms are employed with great effect in appropriate contexts and hardly a single superfluous syllable can be detected in the whole extent of this mighty epic. His verse resembles in its compactness and strength the cyclopean masonry in which well-chiselled blocks of granite are neatly placed one above the other without any adhesive material in between to hold them together. Though he depicts the whole gamut of the *rasas* with perfect competence, he is at his best in dealing with *vīra*, *śṛngāra*, and *duḥkha*. His descriptions of battles and battle-scenes are unrivalled in the whole range of Telugu literature for their liveliness and grandeur. He makes use of the various figures of speech with conspicuous ability. His similes are specially noteworthy; they resemble those of Homer and Milton and recall to mind similar descriptions in the *Iliad* and in the *Paradise Lost*. The most important features of Tikkana’s *Mahābhārata* are the limpid flexibility of its narrative, the vigorous energy of its verse, and the vivid portrayal of the characters. The magic of his incomparable style brings even the most shadowy characters of the Sanskrit epic before us in fresh life and activity. The genius of Tikkana has imparted new beauty and grandeur to Vyāsa’s poem, and transformed it into an Āndhra national epic which occupies a unique place in every Āndhra heart.

v2.c15.s3.t9.14

The *Purāṇas*. Like the two great national epics (*itihāsa*) the *Rāmāyaṇa* and the *Mahābhārata*, the *Purāṇas* also attracted the attention of the poets of the Kākatīya age. Mārana, a disciple of Tikkana Sōmayāji, produced the *Mārkaṇḍēya-purāṇam* based on the Sanskrit *purāṇa* of that name which he dedicated to Nagaya Ganna, the *talāri* of Warangal during the reign of Pratāparudra. Mārana’s *Mārkaṇḍēya-purāṇam* is not a translation of the Sanskrit original but, like the other *āndhrikaraṇas* of the age, is a résumé of the select parts in which the descriptive and the narrative elements predominate over the religious and the didactic. Mārana’s style is simple, free from long Sanskrit compounds; like his great master, Tikkana, he prefers to employ short *dēśi* words which he welds together with consummate skill into pithy sentences full of grace and charm. Avoiding excessive ornamentation, he narrates incidents of the *purāṇa* with the artless simplicity of a born story-teller.

v2.c15.s3.t9.15

The *Kāvya*. The Telugu *Kāvya* perhaps made its appearance about the beginning of this period. The *Kumārasambhavam* of Nanne Chōḍadēva, the Telugu Chōḷa ruler of the Pākanāḍu, Twenty-one Thousand country, is, of course, the earliest of the Telugu *kāvyas*. We have no definite information as to when Nanne Chōḍadēva actually lived and composed his poem. The information which he gives us about himself and his family in the prologue does not lend itself to any definite conclusions, and has given rise, as a matter of fact, to considerable speculation and controversy. Some believe that Nanne Chōḍadēva flourished in the tenth or eleventh century A.D. The archaic language and unusual grammatical forms, as well as the obvious influence on the work of the earlier compositions of Kannada Jaina literature, would seem to strongly argue in favour of an early date. Nevertheless, most Telugu scholars and literary critics consider that Nanne Chōḍadēva was a comparatively late writer and that he could not have lived earlier than the thirteenth century A.D. Nanne Chōḍa mentions, in the eulogy of the ancient Sanskrit poets found in the prologue of his *kāvya*, Kālidāsa himself and another poet of the name of Udbhaṭa who are both said to have composed poems called *Kumārasambhava*m; but his poem is not based on the works of either of these, although translations of a few *ślokas* from Kālidāsa’s *Kumārasambhavam* are found scattered here and there. His is an independent poem in the *kāvya* style into which he has woven episodes connected with the marriage of Śiva and Pārvatī and the birth and the achievements of the War-God drawn from the *Śaiva-purāṇas* and the *Kumārasambhavams* of Kālidāsa and Udbhaṭa. Nanne Chōḍa relates in his *Kumārasambhavam* the stories of the birth of Gaṇēśa, Dakṣa’s sacrifice, the self-immolation of Satī, her rebirth as Pārvatī, the daughter of Himavān and Mēnakā, the marriage of Pārvatī with the God Śiva, the birth of Kumāra and the destruction of the demon Tāraka. Though his language is simple, it teems with archaic terms and expressions which are unintelligible to the modern reader. Although he declares in the introduction that the language used by him in his poem is *Jānu-Telugu*, a term the precise denotation of which is not quite clear, it does not differ in any manner from the literary dialect that had come into vogue after the days of Guṇaga Vijayāditya (A.D. 848–92) and which was employed by Nannayabhaṭṭa and all other writers in subsequent times. The term *jānu* prefixed to the word Telugu by Nanne Chōḍa does not perhaps carry with it any special significance regarding versification or prosody but means only beautiful or graceful Telugu. His style is dignified and flexible; it varies according to the situation, and adapts itself admirably to the nature of the subject dealt with; the diction is extraordinarily rich and varied; and the imagery and the descriptions are original and charming. His touch is delicate, and his handling of the emotions (*rasas*) is masterly and exquisite. His range is wide, and none of the eighteen *varṇanas* and thirty-two *alaṃkāras* known in his day is left untouched. Nanne Chōḍa is indeed a great poet, and his *kāvya* deserves to be placed in the forefront of the species of composition to which it belongs.

v2.c15.s3.t9.16

Tikkana Sōmayāji also wrote a *kāvya* called the *Vijayasēnam*, and Chimmapūḍi Amarēśvara, another famous poet of the period, produced the *Vikramasēnam*, but neither of these is extant; only two verses from the former and a large fragment, consisting of about sixty verses, from the latter are preserved in the anthologies. Amarēśvara’s poem describes the story of a prince of Ujjain called Vikramasēna. Though nothing more can be said of the incidents of the poem, and the manner in which he developed them, he yet left a great reputation behind him, though the work on which this was founded seems to have disappeared long ago. Judging from the quality of the few verses which have survived, the opinion of Vinukoṇḍa Vallabharāya, who flourished in the last quarter of the fourteenth century A.D., that Amarēśvara was as great a poet as Nannayabhaṭṭa, Tikkana and Huḷakki Bhāskara, does not seem to be unjustified. His style is vigorous, and the language felicitous.

v2.c15.s3.t9.17

Story. The poet Errā Preggaḍa, writing about the middle of the fourteenth century A.D., refers to the fondness of the Telugu people for the gāthas or tales. Though this remark presupposes the existence of a gātha literature before his time, it seems to have perished almost completely. The Telugu gātha, like the other forms of Telugu literature, appears to have begun with translations and adaptations of the Sanskrit classics. The gātha writers, like their compeers in other fields of literature, adopted the Champū as their vehicle of expression, the nir-vachana compositions being unpopular and Telugu literary prose as such yet unborn. The earliest surviving collection of such stories is Kētana's Daśakumāracharitra, a translation into Telugu of Daṇḍin's famous work of the same name. Kētana is generally praised for his skill in narration and the naturalness and sobriety of his descriptions; but much of this praise should be really credited to Daṇḍin whom Kētana follows closely, though he deviates from the Sanskrit original in details here and there. The real importance of Kētana's poem lies in the impetuous which it gave to story-writing in Telugu. Another poet who may be classed among the early story writers is Mañchana, the author of the Keyūrabāhucharitra, a translation or rather an adaptation into Telugu of Rājaśēkhara's drama the Vid-dhaśālabhañjika; but Mañchana wove into the texture of his poem many tales drawn from the Pañchatantra and other Sanskrit works of the class. Mañchana's style is simple and charming; his verse is nimble and graceful; and the consummate skill with which he recounts his tales has created for him a unique place among Telugu story-tellers.

v2.c15.s3.t9.18

Grammar and Prosody received due attention. The Āndhrabhāshā-bhūshaṇam of Kētana is the first treatise on grammar in Telugu. Tradition, no doubt, attributes the authorship of the Āndhraśabdachintāmaṇi to Nannayabhaṭṭa, but this is questioned by modern scholars. The Āndhraśabdachintāmaṇi, unlike Kētana's work, is written in Sanskrit. Malliya Rēchana's Kavijanāśrayam is perhaps the earliest treatise on Telugu prosody; a work of the same name is attributed to Vēmulavāḍa Bhīmakavi, but this is not extant. The Kavi-vagbandhanam, a short work on prosody attributed to Tikkana Sōmayājī, also deserves notice.

v2.c15.s3.t9.19

Dharma-Śāstra and the Rājanīti. Kētana translated the Vyavahāra-kāṇḍa of the Vijñānēśvarīya, a commentary on the Yājñavalkya-smṛiti by Vijñānēśvara, a great jurist who flourished at the court of the Western Chāḷukya king Vikramāditya VI of Kalyāṇi. He probably undertook this work in order to facilitate the administration of justice by the dharmāsanas or popular courts of justice. The study and exposition of rājanīti, or politics, appears to have aroused greater interest among the people than did the dharma-śāstras. Not only were Sanskrit works on the subject, such as the *Pañchatantra* and the *Kāmandaka*, translated into Telugu, but several original treatises were also produced in both the languages. Some of these are of great importance because they throw interesting light on aspects of Hindu polity which are either completely ignored or only slightly touched on in the well-known Sanskrit textbooks on the subject. Of these the *Nītisāra* of Pratāparudra written in Sanskrit, the *Nītiśāstra-muktāvaḷi* and the *Sumati Śatakam* of Baddena, and the *Purushārthasāram* of Śivadēvayya in Telugu verse, demand particular attention, as they seem to have exercised profound influence on the Hindu system of government not only during the time of the Kākatīyas but also in succeeding ages. Most of these works have perished; only the *Nītiśāstra-muktāvaḷi* and perhaps also the *Sumati-Śatakam* of Baddena have come down to us. Fortunately extracts from these works as well as many others such as the *Mudrāmātyam* and the *Nitibhūshaṇam*, of unknown age and authorship, are preserved in the *Sakalanītisammatamu*, a compendium on the *rājanīti* compiled by Maḍiki Siṅgana about the middle of the fourteenth century. The language of these works is simple and direct and the expression of the ideas is clear and unambiguous. They invite special notice as much for their literary excellence as for the light they throw on the system of government obtaining in the Āndhra country in the age of the Kākatīya monarchs.

v2.c15.s3.t9.20

The contribution of the Śaivas to the Telugu literature of the period is especially important, since it is associated with growth of the *Dvipada-kāvya* and other types of *dēśi* compositions. It is not known how and when the *dvipada* had its origin, though it is not improbable, judging from the occurrence of analogous metres, like the *taruṿōja* in the inscriptions of the Eastern Chāḷukyan king Guṇaga Vijayāditya (A.D. 848–92), that it was known from the tenth century A.D. onwards; of this, however, there is no clear proof.

v2.c15.s3.t9.21

Śaiva contribution to the literature of the period is both important and extensive, though rigidly sectarian in character and narrow in its scope, being devoted mainly to the hagiology of the Śaiva saints, the exposition of Śaiva theosophy, and the eulogy of Śiva and his attendant deities. Two important works by Pālkuriki Sōmanātha, his *Basava-purāṇam* and his *Paṇḍitārādhyacharitra*, must be noticed here, since they not only describe the tenets of the Vīra Śaiva faith as expounded by Basava but also throw a flood of light on the religious and social conditions obtaining in the Āndhra country during the period of the Kākatīya monarchy. To popularize the doctrines of Basava and convey his teachings to the masses Sōmanātha adopted the *Jānu-Tenuṅgu* language, being Telugu with a large admixture of the spoken dialect, with the *dvipada* metre as the vehicle of his expression, so that his poems might be learnt by heart and understood even by common uneducated folk. Though his *Basava-purāṇam* and *Paṇḍitārādhyacharitra* were designed to be the biographies of the two great Vīra Śaiva reformers and teachers of the twelfth century A.D., he made them compendiums of Vīra Śaiva legend and religious lore by interweaving into them the lives of the Telugu, Tamil, and Kannada saints famous in the Śaiva tradition of south India. Pālkuriki Sōmanātha was an erudite scholar in Sanskrit and the Prākṛits besides being conversant with all the South Indian languages, excepting probably Malayāḷam. He was a poet of great genius with a flair for controversy. The flow of his verse is unrestrained and its technique is uniformly excellent. Though capable of soaring to the highest flights of poetic fancy and imagination, he can be incomparably dull and prosaic and sometimes produces hundreds of mechanical couplets whose only merit is that they are couched in metrical form. Linguists and literary critics often confuse archaic terms and grammatical and metrical peculiarities with poetry; but old and forgotten words, unusual forms of grammar, and metrical peculiarities, though interesting in themselves, must not be taken as substitutes for good poetry; and in judging Sōmanātha’s works the good must be set against the mediocre and a balance struck. However, considered apart from their value as poetical compositions the importance of the Basava-purāṇam and the Paṇḍitārādhyacharitra cannot easily be overrated, for they present a vivid picture of the social and religious conditions of the age, and form an invaluable aid to students of the history of the Kākatīya period.

v2.c15.s3.t9.22

The stōtra literature is much more extensive. It consists of śatakas, and udāharaṇas which are exclusively devoted to the praise of the deities to whom they are addressed. Three important śatakas, viz. the Śivatattvasāram of Mallikārjuna Paṇḍitārādhya, the Sarvēśvara-śatakam of Yathāvākkula Annamayya, and the Vṛishādhipa-śatakam of Pālkuriki Sōmanātha, are of special interest, since they are the earliest specimens of Telugu śataka literature available at present. In fact the composition and publication of Mallikārjuna Paṇḍitārādhya’s Śivatattvasāram in the last quarter of the twelfth century A.D. may be said to have opened a new epoch in the history of Telugu literature. Though it is generally spoken of as a śatakam (a century) it contains, as available at present in an incomplete form, no less than 479 verses in the Kanda metre. It is a polemical work devoted to the description of the true character, as understood by the author, of Śaivism, and to the condemnation of rival creeds. Mallikārjuna was an unbending Pāśupata dualist and shows little or no consideration for the advocates of the other schools of thought, whom he denounces in the fiercest terms. Mallikārjuna is, no doubt, a vigorous writer, but he sacrifices his poetic genius on the altar of fanaticism. To him poetry is not so much an expression of artistic feeling as a medium of religious thought. The nature of the subject is such that it hardly leaves any room for the exercise of poetic talent, and the author certainly makes no attempt to transcend the limitations imposed by his subject. His command over the language is perfect; his verse is free and spontaneous, and his style simple and terse. Mallikārjuna’s Śivatattvasāram, which he has himself translated into Kannada, has exercised profound influence on Śaivism both in Āndhra and Karṇāṭaka. His other works, the *Rudramahima*, the *Gaṇasahasramāla*, and the *Parvatavarṇana*, all devoted to religious topics, have not come down to us.

v2.c15.s3.t9.23

The *Sarvēśvara-śatakam* of Yathāvākkula Annamayya is far superior to *Śivatattvasāram* in artistic excellence. It is perhaps the best composition of its kind produced during the age. Annamayya like Mallikārjuna was an Ārādhya; and his poem, which is addressed to Sarvēśvara, the Universal Lord, was composed in Śaka 1164 (A.D. 1242); it consists of 142 verses in *vṛtta* metres which describe the greatness of Sarvēśvara (Śiva), his omnipotence, the superior sanctity of the votaries of Śiva to all the holy *tirthas* (holy places of pilgrimage), the greatness of the *bhaktas*, the happiness caused by the *Śivayōga* (yōgic contemplation of Śiva), the greatness of the genuine *bhakti*, the *bhakti yōga* (devotional yōga), the control of the mind, the potency of the *Pañchākshari*, the fruit of *bhakti-saṃskāra* (purification caused by *bhakti*), &c. This brief analysis of the subject-matter is enough to show that Annamayya like a true Vīra-Śaiva lays emphasis on *bhakti* and attaches greater importance to the *bhaktas* than even to the worship of the deity. Apart from its importance as an exposition of the Vīra-Śaiva conception of *bhakti*, the *Sarvēśvara-śatakam* ranks high among all the *śatakas* composed in the Telugu language. Annamayya is a thoughtful writer, and some of his ideas anticipate by two centuries Pōtana, the greatest of the devotional poets who have written in Telugu. His poetry occasionally rises to sublime heights not reached by any other Vīra-Śaiva writer of his age. His style is majestic; and his language is lovely and attractive and, though saturated with Sanskrit words and *samāsas*, is clear and easily intelligible; the spontaneous flow of his verse bears testimony to his natural gifts as a poet.

v2.c15.s3.t9.24

The *Vṛishādhipa-śatakam* of Pālkuriki Sōmanātha is another masterpiece of the *śataka* literature which was produced during this period. He was a younger contemporary of Pratāparudra and appears to have survived him by several years. He is said to have migrated, after the overthrow of the Kākatīya monarchy and the Muslim conquest of Āndhra, to Karṇāṭaka where he continued his religious and literary activities. Sōmanātha was a devout follower of Basava, the founder of the Vīra-Śaiva faith for the propagation of which he laboured incessantly throughout his life. The *Vṛishādhipa-śatakam*, as indicated by the *makuṭa* or the refrain which occurs at the end of each of its stanzas, is addressed to Basava. In it Sōmanātha describes certain aspects of Vīra-Śaivism. He lays stress on devotion to the *Jaṅgamas* (the Liṅgāyat mendicants) and the Liṅga, and expatiates on the greatness of Basava and the way in which he offers protection to the *bhaktas* (devotees). The most interesting feature of the *śatakam* is the *bahubhāshā-stuti* or verses composed in several languages, Sanskrit, Prākṛit, Mahārāshṭri, Maṇipravāḷam, Tamil, Kannaḍa, &c., in praise of the spiritual eminence of Basava. The *bahubhāsha-stuti* shows not only Sōmanātha’s knowledge of various languages but also his many-sided scholarship. The style of the *Vṛishādipa-śatakam* is vigorous and forceful, and the language, unlike that of his *Basava-purāṇam* and *Paṇḍitārādhyacarita*, is shot through with Sanskrit words and *samāsas*. Sōmanātha is fond of *śabda-* and *artha-alaṃkāras* and employs them frequently with great effect. Besides the *Vṛṣādhipa-śatakam*, he composed thirty-four verses in the *sīsa* metre addressing the god Chenna-Mallu in which he describes the *ṣaṭ-śalas* or six subjects or topics about which the Vira-Śaivas should occupy themselves in contemplation.¹ Another class of the *stōtra* literature is the *udāharaṇa*, which is devoted to singing the praises either of the deity or of the person to whom it is dedicated. The *udāharaṇa* is a species of *dēśi* composition which appears to have come into existence during the Kākatīya period. It falls into eight sections each of which comprises a *vṛtta*, *kalika*, and *utkalika* addressing the deity or the person, as the case may be, in each of the eight cases of the Telugu grammar. Two compositions of this class, viz. the *Basavōdāharaṇam* of Pālkuriki Sōmanātha and the *Tripurāntakōdāharaṇam* of Ravipāṭi Tripurāntaka, have come down to us. Though excellent specimens of their kind, they do not rank very high as literature. Tripurāntaka was a writer of considerable eminence. His *Ambikā-Tārāvaḷi*, though short, is a work of rare merit and gives an insight into the character of his poetical gifts. He does not, however, seem to have produced any other Telugu work; this was probably due to his love of Sanskrit poetry, for the cultivation of which he seems to have employed most of his talents and energies.

v2.c15.s3.t9.25

¹ See *Chenna-Mallu Sīsamulu, Śatakas*, vol. i (Vavilla Ramaswamy Sastrulu & Sons), pp. 31-51.

v2.c15.s3.t9.26

Śaivism was the predominant faith during the Kākatīya period. Its origin is lost in antiquity. There are references to Rudraśiva in the *Vedas*. He was the same as the Paśupati or Śiva of later times. The three fundamental concepts of Śaivism are Pati, Paśu, and Pāśa. Pati was Śiva himself, Lord of the Paśus, the creatures who are bound by the Pāśas or fetters. Śiva was the Supreme Lord of the Universe and the ultimate reality. The Pāśupata system is said to have been revealed by the Lord Śiva to his *śishyas* or disciples, in whom he himself, as the supreme teacher of the Universe, was incarnated. The *Śiva Purāṇa* and the *Kūrma Purāṇa* furnish a list of twenty-eight *avatāras* of Śiva called *yōgāchāryas*, the first of these being the great *guru* Śvētāchārya and the last Lakulīśa or Nakulīśa. Each of these *āchāryas* had four devotees and hence the total number of the original disciples who followed the *yōgāchāra* school was 112. Lakulīśa, the last and the twenty-eighth *yōgāchārya*, came to spread spiritual knowledge in this *Kaliyuga*. By the efforts of these *yōgāchāryas* and their followers Śaivism had become and remained the outstanding form of belief in the country from ancient times onwards. Out of the eighteen *Purāṇas* no less than ten were dedicated to Śiva.

v2.c15.s3.t9.27

Of the many schools of Śaivism like the Kālāmukha, the Kāpālika, the Śaiva, the Pāśupata, &c., the last mentioned gradually gained the upper hand, eventually securing the favour of the majority of the common people as well as that of the kings, in spite of the predominance enjoyed by the Kālāmukha doctrine at the beginning of the Kākatīya period.

v2.c15.s3.t9.28

Prōla I, the father of Tribhuvanamalla Bēta II, was a follower of Śaivism. He is said to have been ‘the best pupil of Rāmēśvara Paṇḍita’.¹ After renaming the village of Vaijanapalli as Śivapura he gave it as a perpetual fief to his *guru*, Rāmēśvara Paṇḍita, who was proficient in the *Lakulēśvar-Āgama-mahā-siddhānta*. The Kazipet inscription² of Bēta II furnishes some more information about this Rāmēśvara Paṇḍita. This record registers the grant of a hamlet (‘*haḷḷi*’) in the south-western portion of Anumakoṇḍa which Bēta II made as a *sarvamānya* to the same Rāmēśvara Paṇḍita, as was mentioned above, in Śaka 1012 Pramōda, in the month of Kārtika on Sunday, the 15th day of the dark fortnight, on the occasion of a solar eclipse. In this inscription the recipient is described as a Kālāmukha ascetic of the Parvat-āvali, belonging to the famous Mallikārjuna Śilāmaṭha situated on the Śrīparvata.¹

v2.c15.s3.t9.29

¹ I.T.D. *Corpus*, No. 12, p. 55.

v2.c15.s3.t9.30

² Ibid., No. 7. After l. 50 on p. 27, the following passage is missing in the inscription. It is copied from the *Mackenzie Manuscripts*, as it is, without any correction: ‘-ramemba-halliyam-māḍi tanna-pesara-dēvālayam gala nirmisi yā Bētīvaradēvar-aṅge-bhōgakkum raṅga-bhōgakkum dēvālayada-khaṇḍasphuṭi ta-nava-sudhā-karma-nirmāṇakkum-allirpa tapōdhanarg-annadānak-kum-atithi sa-’.

v2.c15.s3.t9.31

¹ Ibid. The text from line 55 to line 59 should be as shown below: ‘*palliyam Kālāmukha-tapōdhanarum Śrīparv(v)ata-prasid(d)ha-Mallikārjuna-Śilāmaṭh-ācāry(y)arum-appa-Parv(v)atāvaliya Rāmēśvara-paṇḍitarg(g)ē*’, &c.

v2.c15.s3.t9.32

The existence of the Kālāmukha school of Śaivism in the Andhra country, even long before the Kākatiya period, is known to us from the Tāṇḍikoṇḍa grant of the Eastern Chāḷukyan king, Ammarāja II (A.D. 945-70).² This grant informs us that ‘in every age (Śaiva) saints like Lakuli and others have taken upon themselves the forms of Rudra, that is, Śiva, and have become self-incarnate in the world as a blessing to righteous men’. These teachers of the Kālāmukha school belonged to various sects called *parshes* (*parshads*), such as the *Simhaparshe*, the *Saktiparshe*, &c.³ There seem to have been further subdivisions called *āmnāya* or *āvali* and *santati*. One of the Ablūr inscriptions of A.D. 1112 describes the Kālāmukhas as having attained fame in the *Saktiparshe* of the *Mūvarakōṇeya-santāna* of the Parvat-āmnāya.⁴ From a second record at the same place dated in A.D. 1101 we discover that Parvat-āvali was in fact another name for Parvat-āmnāya. ‘In the line named Parvat-āvali which was esteemed to be greatly (that is, undoubtedly) the leading (division) of the sect, celebrated in the world, named *Saktiparshe*’, it says, ‘there became famous the eminent (Kālāmukha) ascetic, Kēdāra Śakti, an ornament to the succession, named *Mūvarakōṇeya-santati*.’⁵ Rāmēśvara Paṇḍita, the Kālāmukha Śaiva saint and the *rāja-guru* of Prōla I and Bēta II, belonged, as we have just said, to the *Parvat-āvali*⁶ line of the famous Mallikārjuna Śilāmaṭha, one of the five famous Śaiva-*maṭhas* situated on the Śrīparvata. The names of the Kālāmukha Śaiva saints end in Śakti, Rāsi, Paṇḍita, and Rāsi-paṇḍita. Rāmēśvara Paṇḍita is said, in his Hanumakoṇḍa record,⁷ to have been proficient in the *Lakulīśvar-Āgama*, which is no other than *Lākula-Siddhānta*, that is, the Āgama or the doctrine of the Śaiva teacher, Lakulīśa, Lakulīśvara, or Nakulīśvara. A certain Kālāmukha ascetic, Sōmēśvara Paṇḍita, is described, in one of the Ablūr inscriptions,⁸ as one who is a very sun to (open) the great cluster of water-lilies (blooming in the daytime) that is the *Nyāya Śāstra* (*Nyāya-Śāstra-vistṛita-sarōja-vana-Divākara*), who is a very autumn-moon to bring to full tide the ocean of the Vaiśēshikas (*Vaiśēshika-vārdhi-vardhana-śarat-sudhākara*), and ‘who is a very ruby-ornament of those who are versed in the *Sānkhy-Āgama*’ (*‘Sānkhy-Āgama-pravīṇa-māṇikya-ābharaṇa’*). This description makes it clear that the Kālāmukhas were Naiyāyikas and Vaiśēshikas. Rāmēśvara Paṇḍita, the *guru* of Kākati Prōla II, was probably identical with the Śaiva saint of the same name, who was the *Sthānādhipati* of the temple of Bhīmēśvara Mahādēva at Dakshārāmam and a contemporary of Tribhuvanamalladēva, Vikramāditya VI.¹

v2.c15.s3.t9.33

² Ep. Ind., xxiii, pp. 163-5.

v2.c15.s3.t9.34

³ Ibid., p. 165, &c.

v2.c15.s3.t9.35

⁴ Ibid., v, 218, 220.

v2.c15.s3.t9.36

⁵ Ibid., pp. 219.

v2.c15.s3.t9.37

⁶ The translation of the passage from lines 54 to 60 of this inscription (as given in the *Corpus of Inscriptions in the Telangana Districts*, H. E. H. The Nizam’s Dominions), which is as follows, is wrong: ‘(ll. 54-60) to *Aliya-Rāmēśvara-paṇḍita* of *Appa-parvata*, the head of the famous Mallikārjuna-Śilā-maṭha of *Śrīparvata*, an ascetic of the Kālāmukha (creed). . . .’

v2.c15.s3.t9.38

⁷ *Corpus*, No. 12, p. 55.

v2.c15.s3.t9.39

⁸ EI, v, 220.

v2.c15.s3.t9.40

¹ SII, iv, No. 1229.

v2.c15.s3.t9.41

The early Kākatīya princes who preceded Bēta II were also followers of Śaivism and of the disciples of Rāmēśvara Paṇḍita of the Kālāmukha school, which was at its zenith during the rule of the Western Chālukyas of Kalyāṇi, particularly from the time of Āhavamalla Sōmēśvara I onwards, if not from a still earlier period.

v2.c15.s3.t9.42

Prōla II, the son of Bēta II, was apparently not as single-minded a devotee of Śaivism as his father and grandfather, whose benefactions seem to have been confined to the followers of this doctrine. Prōla, though himself a Śaivite, was tolerant of other faiths. The Hanumakonda record of the Western Chālukyan king, Vikramāditya VI, dated in the Chālukya Vikrama year 42, may be cited in support of this statement. Mailāmba, the wife of his minister, Bētana Preggaḍa, son of Vaijadaṇḍādhinātha, established a Jain basadi called Kadalalāya-basadi.² Kākati Prōla II made a grant of two *mattars* of land under the tank constructed by his minister in the name of his wife, to this same basadi. However, Prōla II's son, Rudradēva, and his brother Mahādēva were *parama-māhēśvaras*, like their grandfather, Bēta II.

v2.c15.s3.t9.43

² EI, ix, 256.

v2.c15.s3.t9.44

The reign of Gaṇapatidēva, son of Mahādēva, is a memorable milestone in the history of the Śaiva religion of the Kākatīya period. The advent into the Āndhra country of the Śaiva teachers of the Pāśupata school of the Gōlaki-maṭha brought about a change in the fortunes of the Kālāmukha sect.

v2.c15.s3.t9.45

In fact the Kālāmukha and the Pāśupata schools of Śaivism have actually very much in common.³ Nevertheless as systems of faith and custom their paths gradually took different ways and this divergence lay probably chiefly in matters of religious practice and ritual. Even as early as the ninth century A.D., Pāśupata Śaivism had split into four different sects: namely, the Śaivas, Pāśupatas, Kāpālikas, and Kāruṇika-siddhāntins, all of which are referred to by Vāchaspati Miśra (A.D. 850). These divisions are also mentioned in the *Āgamaprāmāṇya* of Yāmunāchārya, but here the Kālāmukhas take the place of the Kāruṇika-siddhāntins. And in fact we already know that by the tenth century A.D. the Kālāmukha formed a distinct school of Śaivism.

v2.c15.s3.t9.46

³ Both follow the doctrine of Lakula or Lakulīśvara, the twenty-eighth *yōgāchārya*. The Kāpālika, Kālāmukha, &c., are said to be the offshoots of the Pāśupata school.—*A comprehensive History of India—The Mauryas and the Sātavāhanas*—edited by K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, p. 397, n. 2. 'The *Lakula-Siddhānta* is a Vaiśēshika system; it is also a *Vaidika* system. The disciples of Lakuli were mainly followers of Nyāya, though in later days the two systems, *Nyāya* and *Vaiśēshika*, merged into one another.'—JAHRS, xiii, 177. 'This system (Pāśupata) was then called by various other names such as Nakulīśa or Lakulīśa, Pāśupata, Kālāmukha, Yōga, Śaiva, Naiyāyika &c.'—R. Anantakrishna Sastri in his introduction to The *Pāśupata Sūtras* with the *Pañchārtha-bhāshya* of Kauṇḍinya, p. 5.

v2.c15.s3.t9.47

During the reign of Kākati Gaṇapatidēva the Pāśupata Śaivas, chiefly belonging to the Gōlaki-maṭha, gained popularity among the masses as well as with the reigning house, and the Kālāmukha ascetics lost their hold both in the kingdom at large and in the royal court. Like the names of the Kālāmukhas those of the Pāśupata teachers end in Śiva, Śambhu, and Paṇḍita, but never in Rāsi. Viśvēśvara Śiva was the rāja-guru, the royal preceptor of Gaṇapatidēva. He confirmed this king as a Śaivite devotee through the initiation ceremony of Śiva-dīkshā. Consequently Viśvēśvara Śivāchārya is known as the dīkshā-guru of Gaṇapatidēva.

v2.c15.s3.t9.48

The Malkāpuram inscription of Rudramadēvī,¹ the daughter and successor of Gaṇapatidēva, gives an interesting and detailed account of the Śaiva teachers of the Gōḷaki-maṭha. The account runs thus: In the country known as Ḍāhala-maṇḍala situated between the rivers Bhāgīrathī and Narmadā, there flourished a line of Śaiva teachers whose founder was Durvāsa. In this line appeared Sadbhāva Śambhu. He received from the Kaḷachuri monarch Yuvarājadēva the Three-lakh Province (that is, a province in which there were three lakhs of villages) as a bhikshā (maintenance gift). This Śaiva ascetic founded a Śaiva monastery (maṭha) called Gōḷaki-maṭha, and gave away that province as the vṛtti for the maintenance of the teachers of that maṭha. Sōma Śambhu, who was born as a member of the same line, composed, with a title taken from his own name, a work called Sōma-śambhu-paddhati which was like the sētu to the ocean of all the Āgamas (‘Sakal-Āgama-sindhu-sētu’). After Sōma Śambhu came Vāma Śambhu, whose feet also were worshipped by the Kaḷachuri kings. In this Gōḷaki-maṭha appeared gurus and their disciples in thousands, who had the power to bless or curse the kings of the earth by their mere appearance before them. As time passed on there came into being in this line a sage called Śakti Śambhu. His immediate disciple was Kīrti Śambhu. Then appeared Vimala Śiva, a native of the Kērala country, who was highly respected by the Kaḷachuri monarchs. His favourite scholar was the Śaiva saint, Dharma Śiva. And in turn his spiritual son (‘dharma-tanaya’) was Viśvēśvara Śambhu, the crest jewel of Pūrva-grāma in the province of Rāḍhā of the Gauḍa country, and a great Vēdic scholar. It was he who administered the ‘dīkshā’ (initiation) to king Gaṇapatidēva. The Chōḷa and Māḷava kings too were devotees of this Viśvēśvara-dēśika, who was also the dīkshā-guru of the Kaḷachuri monarchs. Gaṇapatidēva styled himself the son (or spiritual son) of Viśvēśvara Śambhu, evidently after the initiation ceremony had taken place. This account comprises most of what we know of the Gōḷaki-maṭha² and of the line of the Śaiva teachers connected with it. These Śivāchāryas of the Gōḷaki-maṭha are also said in many inscriptions to have belonged to the Gōḷaki-vaṃśa or religious lineage, and are called Bhikshā-maṭha-santāna or Lakshādhyāyi-santāna, that is, ‘the descendants of gurus supported by a monastery endowed with a bhikshā or maintenance gift, or with the lakh-gift’. These Śaiva teachers exerted great influence on the Kaḷachuri kings of Chēdi, the Kākatīya kings of Warangal, and the kings of Māḷava and of the Chōḷa countries.

First 55 of 89 passages. Read on

Cites (40)