History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.799.3

v4.c63.t2.799.3

On the other hand there are three inscriptions, the (*Continued from the last page*) Gwalior stone Inscription of Mihirakula (Gupta Ins. No. 37 p. 161), the Mandasor stone Pillar Inscription of Yaśodharman (Gupta Ins. No. 33 p. 142), and the Mandasor Stone Inscription of Yaśodharman Viṣṇuvardhana (Gupta Ins. No. 35 p. 150) in none of which is Bālāditya referred to. But in the Sarnath Stone of Prakaṭāditya, son of Bālāditya, another Bālāditya is referred to (Gupta Ins. No. 79 p. 284). In the Mandasor Stone Pillar Inscription (Gupta Ins. p. 147) occur these words relating to Mihirakula 'नीचैस्तेनापि यस्य प्रणतिभुजबलावर्जनाक्लिष्टमूर्ध्ना चूडापुष्पोपहारै-म्मिहिरकुलनृपेणार्श्वितं पादयुग्मम्'. In the Mandasor Stone Ins. (Gupta Ins. No. 35 at p. 153) lines 4 and 5 read अथ जयति नरेन्द्रः श्रीयशोधर्मनामा। आजौ जिती विजयते जगतीं पुनश्च श्रीविष्णुवर्धननराधिपतिः स एव॥ Dr. Fleet held that Yaśodharman and Viṣṇuvardhana were different, but the reasons he assigns are unconvincing and Jayaswal appears to be right in holding that Viṣṇuvardhana is the same as Yaśodharman (in 'Imperial History' pp. 39-41) and that Viṣṇuvardhana was the overlord of Bālāditya. It appears likely that the compilers of the extant Purāṇas combined the two principal parts of the two names Viṣṇuvardhana and Yaśodharman and that the conqueror of the Mlecchas was said to be Viṣṇuyaśas. Vide I. H. Q. vol. XII p. 531 and vol. XV pp. 302-306 for Yaśodharman, Viṣṇuvardhana and Mihirakula and Dr. R. G.