South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

In this connection, a verse, the text of which is lost but the commentary with the exception of the commencing words is preserved, appears to be very interesting. This commentary runs : ºmāṇavayās=sa (very probably kshīyamāṇa-vayās=sa as suggested by Ojha and Guleri) Sāhasikas=tapasvinē Vāmadēva-nāmnē nija-rājalakshmīṁ guru-dakshiṇāyai dattvā sarvāṁ bhūmiṁ jētuṁ prasthitavān. Thus the Kaḷachuri king Sāhasika of Tripurī is stated to have offered his kingdom as guru-dakshiṇā to his guru, the ascetic Vāmadēva, and went out on a digvijaya. I think it very probable that the Kalachuri king Sāhasika of Tripurī mentioned in the Pṛithvīrājavijaya is no other than Gāṅgēyadēva (circa 1015-41 A.C.) who was a great conqueror and established the imperial dignity of the Kalachuri family of Ḍāhala on a firm basis. Gāṅgēya assumed the title Vikramāditya after a famous hero of Indian tradition and folklore, whose other biruda was Sāhasāṅka. The name Sāhasika, applied to the Kalachuri king in the Pṛithvīrājavijaya, seems to be another form of Sāhasāṅka=Vikramāditya.^[1]

This reference to an ascetic Vāmadēva as the guru of a Kalachuri king who dedicated his kingdom in the former’s favour is supported by the mention of Vāmadēva, for the first time, in the earliest record of Gāṅgēya’s son Karṇa (circa 1041-71 A.C.) as the latter’s overlord and also by the evidence of the Malkāpuram inscription showing that the Kalachuri kings worshipped the Śaiva saint Vāmaśaṁbhu for about two centuries before the middle of the thirteenth century. This goes against Professor Mirashi’s conjecture that Vāmadēva of the passage Vāmadēva-pad-ānudhyāta in the Kalachuri records has to be identified with a Kalachuri king of the seventh century whose name has been read by him as Vāmarāja, although it has appeared to others as Vāgharāja, Vāvarāja, Vāparāja or Vōparāja. As Sōmēśvara’s marriage took place when he was staying at the court of Kumārapāla (circa 1141-73 A.C.) and as his son Pṛithvīrāja III was born some time before the death of Vigraharāja IV (circa 1153-64 A.C.), it seems possible that the Tripurī-purandara Tējala was no other than Gayākarṇa (circa 1125-55 A.C.), great-grandson of Gāṅgēyadēva Vikramāditya=Sāhasika (Sāhasāṅka).

If the Kalachuri kingdom was formally dedicated by Gāṅgēya about the end of his career to his guru Vāmadēva (Vāmaśambhu), it is easy to explain why that king’s son as well as the latter’s successors claimed to have been viceroys of Vāmadēva just as in the case of the deputies of other theoretical overlords like the gods Jagannātha-Purushottama, Ēkaliṅga and Padmanābha. But what explanation can we reasonably offer for the continuous mention of a seventh century ancestor in the records of his descendants from the middle of the eleventh century ? Is not the unjustifiability of Professor Mirashi’s suggestion that Vāmarāja was mentioned as being meditated on by all his descendants from the end of the seventh century quite clearly demonstrated by the total omission of the name of this alleged illustrious ancestor of the Kalachuri emperors from the elaborate genealogy of the early members of the family found in such records as the Bilhari inscription^[2] of Yuvarāja II and the Banaras plates^[3] of Karṇa ? If he was so important an ancestor as to be meditated on by all the Kalachuri emperors from Karṇa downwards, i.e., from the eleventh century onwards (as indicated by inscriptions, but from the seventh century as claimed by Professor Mirashi), how is his omission from the genealogy to be explained ? In my opinion, there is no answer to the question except surmises which cannot be seriously considered.

_______________________________________________

^[1] See JUPHS, Vols. XXIV-XXV, 1951-52, p. 232. The characteristic epithet sāhasika is very often found in the description of Vikramāditya ; cf. Ind. Cult., Vol. VI, p. 194 ; Vikrama Volume, ed. R. K. Mookerji, 1948, pp. 637 ff.
^[2] See Bhandarkar, List, No. 1577.
^[3] Ibid., No. 1223. As regards the absence of the passage Vāmadēva-pād-ānudhyāta in Kalachuri records of a date earlier than the beginning of Karṇa’s rule, pointed out by me, Prof. Mirashi says that the expression “generally occurs in the copper plate grants.” He also says, “In the absence of the grants of earlier kings, it is not safe to assume that Vāmadēva was forgotten in the meanwhile.” But the occurrence of the passage in question in the Sarnath stone inscription of Karṇa (ASI, AR, 1906 07, pp. 100 f.) and the Lalpahad rock inscription of Narasiṁha (Ind. Ant., Vol. XVIII, pp. 211 ff.) clearly shows that the Professor’s contention cannot be maintained.