________________
No. 7]
BANGAON PLATE OF VIGRAHAPALA III; REGNAL YEAR 17
another Kölāñcha Brāhmaṇa. That Köläñcha, together with Tarkāri, apparently not far from it, was one of the most renowned seats of learned Brāhmaṇas in the early medieval period is definitely suggested by numerous charters of East Indian rulers granted in favour of the Brahmanas hailing from that place. The identification of the locality is disputed. Some scholars locate it in the ancient Sråvasti country, i. e., the district round modern Set-Mahet on the borders of the Gonda and Bahraich Districts of the U. P., while others are inclined to place it on the borders of the Dinajpur and Bogra Districts of North Bengal. The suggestion of the former group of scholars appears to be more reasonable. Equally interesting is the fact that the reverential attitude of East Indian Brāhmanas towards the Brāhmaṇas of Kölancha, as evidenced by the record under review, seems to have been an important factor in th3 growth of the peculiar social institution, known as Kulinism, in North Bihär and Bengal.
According to the Kulajis or Kula-pañjikās of Bengal, the Radhiya and Värēndra Brāhmaṇas, who now form the bulk of the Brāhmaṇa community of Bengal, are descended from five learned Brahmaņas who came to Bengal from Kölāñcha (Kanyakubja according to some versions) at the invitation of a king named Ādisūra because of the dearth of Brāhmaṇas versed in the Vēdas in that country. Different and mutually conflicting genealogies of Adisūra are given in different texts. He is said to have been the ruler of Bengal and Orissa, although some authorities include in his dominions Anga, Kalinga, Karnāta, Kērala, Kamarüpa, Saurashtra, Magadha, Mälava and Gurjara. His capital is placed by some at Gauda in West Bengal and by others at Vikramapura in East Bengal. Six different religious ceremonies are mentioned by different authorities, for the performance of which the Brāhmaṇas are said to have been invited. The date of the advent of the five Brāhmaṇas is also variously put as Saka 654, 675, 804, 854, 864, 914, 954, 994 and 999, while no less than three sets of names are offered as those of the five Brāhmaņas. The nature of the traditions points clearly to their unreliable character. The reference to the Saka era shows beyond doubt that the stories were fabricated after the popularisation of the use of that era in Bengal about the twelfth century A.C. There is evidence regarding the rule of a Sūra dynasty in Bengal.But no genuine ruler named Adisūra is known from the Bengal sources. The only Adiśüra known to East Indian history is a petty chief who flourished in North Bihär or its neighbourhood in the ninth century A.C. Maithila Vāchaspatimiśra refers to this person in his Nyāyakanika, a commentary on Mandanamisra's Vidhiviveka, in the passage : nija-bhuja-vīryam āsthāya sürān=Adisuro jayati. Váchaspatimiśra composed his Nyāyasuchi in (Vikrama] Samvat 898 (vasv-anka-vasu-vatsarē), i.e., in 841 A.C.? Thus Adisūra, contemporary of Vāchaspatimisra, must also have flourished about the middle of the ninth century. Whether this Adisūra was a V&seal of the Pāla emperors of Bengal and Bihär cannot be determined; but most probably he was. In any case, he could not have been a mighty ruler. Since, however, the Pālas were Buddhists, this
See History of Bengal, op. cit., pp. 479-80. Kõlāñcha or Krödañoha is also called Kõlafcha, Krödafiohi and Krodaja.
. Ibid, loc. cit. *Ibid, pp. 626-28.
See JRASB, Letters, Vol. XVII, pp. 30-31, 80. Sridhars who wrote his Nyayakandali in Baka 913–191 A.O. was an inhabitant of Dakshina-Radha; but there is no proof that the work was written in Bengal. The author's patron Pandudása seems to have flourished in an area where the Saks ers was popular (cf. Hist. Beng., p. 688n). The case of Udayana who composed his Lakshanavali in Saka 906=985 A. C., is more dubious (af. ibid., p. 313n).
Hisl. Beng., op. cit, pp. 210-11. • Benares ed., p. 290 ; Vangiya Sahitya Parishat Patrika, Vol. LVII, p. 68.
See 8. C. Vidyabhushan, History of Indian Logic, p. 133. Recent attempts to refer the year 898 to the Saka ors (J.G.J.R.I., Vol. II, pp. 349-53; Vangiya Sahitya Parishat Patriku, op. cit., pp. 69-70) are unwarranted as the Buka era was not provalent in Mithila and the neighbouring areas in the tenth century. It has to be noticed that years of the Saka era are usually not quoted vaguely as 'the year' as in the Nyayasüchi, eto.
1 DGA
