________________
166
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
[VOL. XXVII
does not occur in any record of the time of the Kalachuris, nor is the magnificent gift of practically one third of the Dāhala country mentioned in any of them. Further, it is not stater whether it was Yuvarijadēva I or Yuvarajadeva II who made this gift. Yuvarijadēva I is indeed known to have invited some Saiva ascetics to his country, but he and his queen Nõhala: donated only a few villages to them. If the Saiva 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 Goļaki matha was founded long before his time, if it was identical with the hypaethral temple at Bherā-Ghāt near Jubbulpur; for the inscriptions on the pedestals of the Yöginis installed in it are in characters of about the beginning of the tenth century A. D., and therefore belong to the reign of Yuvarājadēva I, not to that of Yuvarājadēva II. Again, it is doubtful if Vámasambhu was a contemporary of Karna. The Malkāpuram inscription states that more than a thousand disciples and disciples' disciples of Vámasambhu lived in the. Gõlaki matha and that in that line, in course of time, there was Kirtisambhu, the disciple of Saktisambhu. The tenor of tbe description suggests that Saktiśambhu was separated from Vámasambhu by several generations of Saiva pontiff's. From the Jubbulpur stone inscription of Vimalaśiva, however, which I have recently edited in this journal,' it appears clear that Saktisiva (who is plainly identical with Saktisambhu) was the rājaguru of Gayakarna. He must therefore have been separated from Vāmasambhu or Vämadēva, the supposed rajaguru of Gayākarna's grandfather Karna, by one generation only. Besides, the Malkāpuram inscription does not state why Vāmasambhu was so much venerated by Kalacburi kings. Its statement that even in A. D. 1261 the Kalachuri kings were worshipping Vamasambhu's feet is not supported by what we know of the history of the Kalachuris of Dahula. The last known Kalachuri king of Dahala was Vijayasimha who was ruling in the Kalachuri year® 96(?) (circa 1210 A. D.). Within two or three years afterwards, we find the Chandēlla king Trailokyavarman had annexed his kingdom and the Saiva áchārya too had become bis preceptor. That the petty rulers who held parts of Dāhala continued to acknowledge the suzerainty of the Chandēllas appears plain from the Isvaramaū (Hindaria) inscription, dated V. 1344 (A. D. 1287) which mentions Vāghadēva as a feudatory of Bhõjavarman of Kalañjara 10 It is therefore doubtful if there was any Kalachuri king ruling in Dahala11 in A. D. 1261 who in his records described himself as Vāmadēva-pad-anudhyāta. For
1 In the Skandapurana the Dabala country is said to have contained nine lakhs of villages.
• The Saiva acharya invited by Yuvarājadēva I was named Prabhāvasiva, above, Vols. XXI, p. 149 and XXII, p. 130.
The Saiva acharya to whom Nohali made gifts of villages was Isvarasiva, above, Vol. I, p. 238.
* R. B. Hiralal identified the Gõlaki matha with this temple at Bheri-Ghāt. J. B. 0. R. 8., Vol. XIII, pp. 137-40.
The characters of these inscriptions are much earlier than those of tho Bilhări stone inscription which belongs to the reign of Yuvarājadēva II. See also, Banerji, Haihayas of Tripuri and their Monuments, (M. A. 8. I., No. 23), p. 78. •तस्मिन्मठे तस्य गुरोर्बभूवुश्शिष्याः प्रशिष्याश्च पर[:*]सहस्राः । विनिग्रहीतुं समनुग्रहीतुं
क्षोणीश्वरान्वक्षकटाक्षपातैः ॥ इत्यं काले याति सत्संप्रदाये सन्तान स्मिन्नर्थिसन्तानकल्पे ।
शेवाम्भोधेश्शक्तिशम्भोलंदाराच्छिष्यः श्रीमान् कीर्तिशम्भुर्बभूव ॥ Above, Vol. XXV, p. 312.
• The last figure of the date is illegible. Dr. N. P. Chakravarti has read it as 3. An. Rep. A. 8. 1., 1935-36, pp.89-90.
Above, Vol. XXV, pp. 1 ff. Soe the expression tri-fati(ti)-rajy-adhipati-srimat-Trailokyamalla-pad-a(a)rchchana-ratah' which is incorrect for-Trailökyamall-architapāda) in 1. 12 of the Rowah plates of Trilokyamalladēva, loc. cit., p. 6.
10 Hiralal's Inscriptions in C. P. and Berar (second ed.), p. 56.
u Tho kings of Pahala defeated by the Yadava princes Singhapa and Kamachandra appear to be Chandellas sed not the Kalachuria w I had thought beforo.
