South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

does not occur in any record of the time of the Kalachuris, nor is the magnificent gift of practically one third of the Ḍāhala country^[1] mentioned in any of them. Further, it is not stated whether it was Yuvarājadēva I or Yuvarājadēva II who made this gift. Yuvarājadēva I is indeed known to have invited some Śaiva ascetics to his country,^[2] but he and his queen Nōhalā^[3] donated only a few villages to them. If the Śaiva pontiffs had obtained such a magnificent gift from the Kalachuri Emperor, they would, in all probability, have mentioned it in their records. As for Yuvarājadēva II, none of his gifts is indeed recorded, but it is certain that the Gōḷakī maṭha was founded long before his time, if it was identical with the hypaethral temple at Bherā-Ghāṭ near Jubbulpur;^[4] for the inscriptions on the pedestals of the Yōginīs installed in it are in characters of about the beginning of the tenth century A. D.,^[5]and therefore belong to the reign of Yuvarājadēva I, not to that of Yuvarājadēva II. Again, it is doubtful if Vāmaśambhu was a contemporary of Karṇa. The Malkāpuram inscription states that more than a thousand disciples and disciples’ disciples of Vāmaśambhu lived in the Gōḷakī maṭha and that in that line, in course of time, there was Kīrtiśambhu, the disciple of Śaktiśambhu.^[6] The tenor of the description suggests that Śaktiśambhu was separated from Vāmaśambhu by several generations of Śaiva pontiffs. From the Jubbulpur stone inscription of Vimalaśiva,

>

however, which I have recently edited in this journal,^[7] it appears clear that Śaktiśiva (who is plainly identical with Śaktiśambhu) was the rājaguru of Gayākarṇa. He must therefore have been separated from Vāmaśambhu or Vāmadēva, the supposed rājaguru of Gayākarṇa’s grandfather Karṇa, by one generation only. Besides, the Malkāpuram inscription does not state why Vāmaśambhu was so much venerated by Kalachuri kings. Its statement that even in A. D. 1261 the Kalachuri kings were worshipping Vāmaśambhu’s feet is not supported by what we know of the history of the Kalachuris of Ḍāhala. The last known Kalachuri king of Ḍāhala was Vijayasiṁha who was ruling in the Kalachuri year8 96(?) (circa 1210 A. D.). Within two or three years afterwards, we find the Chandēlla king Trailōkyavarman had annexed his kingdom and the Śaiva āchārya too had become his preceptor.9 That the petty rulers who held parts of Ḍāhala continued to acknowledge the suzerainty of the Chandēllas appears plain from the Iśvaramaū (Hiṇḍariā) inscription, dated V. 1344 (A. D. 1287) which mentions Vāghadēva as a feudatory of Bhōjavarman of Kālañjara.10 It is therefore doubtful if there was any Kalachuri king ruling in Ḍāhala11 in A. D. 1261 who in his records described himself as Vāmadēva-pād-ānudhyāta. For

_____________________________________

^[1] In the Skandapurāṇa the Ḍāhala country is said to have contained nine lakhs of villages.
^[2] The Śaiva āchārya invited by Yuvarājadēva I was named Prabhāvaśiva, above, Vols. XXI, p. 149, and XXII, p. 130.
^[3] The Śaiva āchārya to whom Nōhalā made gifts of villages was Īśvaraśiva, above, Vol. I, p. 238.
^[4] R. B. Hiralal identified the Gōḷakī maṭha with this temple at Bherā-Ghāṭ. J. B. O. R. S., Vol. XIII, pp. 137-40.
^[5] The characters of these inscriptions are much earlier than those of the Bilhāri stone inscription which belongs to the reign of Yuvarājadēva II. See also, Banerji, Haihayas of Tripurī and their Monuments, (M. A. S. I., No. 23), p. 78.
^[6]
[7] Above, Vol. XXV, p. 312.
^[8] The last figure of the date is illegible. Dr. N. P. Chakravarti has read it as 2. An. Rep. A. S. I., 1935-36, pp. 89-90.
^[9] Above, Vol. XXV, pp. 1 ff. See the expression tri-śari(tī)-rājy-ādhipati-śrīmat-Trailōkyamalla-pād-a(ā)rch-chana-rataḥ’ which is incorrect for─Trailōkyamall-ārchitapādaḥ in l. 12 of the Rewah plates of Trailōkyamalladēva, loc. cit., p. 6.
^[10] Hiralal’s Inscriptions in C. P. and Berar (second ed.), p. 56.
^[11] The kings of Ḍāhala defected by the Yādava princes Siṅghaṇa and Rāmachandra appear to be Chandēllas and not the Kalachuris as I had thought before.