________________
50
EPIGRAPHIA 'INDICA
(VOL. XXX
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 : omānavayās=8a (very probably kshiyamāna-vayās=sa as suggested by Ojha and Guleri) Sahasikas tapasvinē Vāmadēva-nämni nija-rajalakshmi guru dakshiņāyai dattvä sarvär bhumim jētum prasthitavān. Thus the Kalachuri king Sāhasika of Tripuri is stated to have offered his kingdom as guru-dakshinā to his guru, the ascetic Vāmadēva, and went out on a digvijaya. I think it very probable that the Kalachuri king Sāhasika of Tripuri mentioned in the Prithvirājavijaya is no other than Gängėyadēva (circa 1015-41 A.C.) who was a great conqueror and established the imperial dignity of the Kalachuri family of Dāhala on a firm basis. Gängöya assumed the title Vikramaditya after a famous hero of Indian tradition and folklore, whose other biruda was Sāhasānka. The name Sähasika, applied to the Kalachuri king in the Prithvirājavijaya, seems to be another form of Sahasänka-Vikramāditya.
This reference to an ascetic Vămadēva 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 Gangya's-son Karna (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 Saiva saint Vāmasambhu 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-änudhyata in the Kalachuri records has to be identified with a Kalachuri king of the seventh century whose name has been read by him as Vâmarāja, although it has appeared to others as Vāgharāja, Vāvarāja, Vāparāja or Vāparāja. As Sõmēsvara's marriage took place when he was staying at the court of Kumāra pāla (circa 1141-73 A.C.) and as his son Prithvirāja III was born some time before the death of Vigraharāja IV (circa 1153-64 A.C.), it seems possible that the Tripuri-purandara Tējala was no other than Gayäkarna (circa 1125-55 A.C.), great-grandson of Gārgēgadēva Vikramaditya=Sahasika (Sähasāńka).
If the Kalachuri kingdom was formally dedicated by Gängēya about the end of his career to his guru Vāmadēva (Vāmasambhu), 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, Ekalinga and Padmanabha. But what explanation can we reasonably offer for the continuous mention of a seventh century ancestor in the records of his desceñidants from the middle of the eleventh century? Is not the unjustifiabi. lity of Professor Mirashi's suggestion that Vâmarāja 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 of Yuvarāja II and the Banaras plates of Karna? If he was so important an ancestor'as to be meditated on by all the Kalachuri emperors from Karna 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.
See JUPHS, Vols. XXIV-XXV, 1951-52, p. 232. The characteristic epithet sähasika is very often found in the description of Vikramaditya; of. Ind. Cult., Vol. VI, p. 194 ; Vikrama Volume, ed. R. K. Mookerji, 1948, Pp. 637 fr.
* Sec Bhandarkar, List, No. 1577.
3 Ibid., No. 1223. As regards the absence of the passage Vámadena-pad-anudhyata in Kalachuti records of a date earlier than the beginning of Karna'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 Vamadēva was forgotten in the meanwhile." But the occurrence of the passage in question in the Sarnath stone inscription of Karna (ASI, AR, 1906 07, pp. 100 f.) and the Lalpahad rock inscription of Narasimaa (Ind. Ant., Vol. XVIII, pp. 211 ff.) clearly shows that the Professor's contention cannot be maintained.
