South Indian Inscriptions

INCRIPTIONS OF THE KALACHURIS OF TRIPURI

formed on the day before and while dvitīyā, the anniversary day, could not be changed, it had to be associated with the week-day on which the ceremonies actually took place.¹ This explanation also does not appear to be convincing; because, there is no authority in the Dharmaśāstras for changing the tithi for the performance of a śrāddha, even if it falls on an inauspicious day. We must, therefore, seek some other explanation of this irregularity.

It seems to me that the date of the śrāddha was really the second tithi of the dark half of Phālguna. As shown by Dr. Kielhorn, in the Kalachuri year 793 it was connected with the sunrise of Monday, but as the afternoon is preferred to the forenoon for the performance of a śrāddha², Karna must have performed the śrāddha of his father in the afternoon of the preceding day, i.e., Sunday, the 10th January 1042 A.C. when the second tithi was current. As we have seen before, this was the first anniversary of Gāngēyadēva’s death. The Smritis lay down two or three śrāddhas which are to be performed before the śrāddha on the first anniversary of a relative’s death.3 The ceremonies are, therefore, usually commenced one or two days before the day of the first anniversary. Karna also seems to have done the same. At the time of the ūnābdika śrāddha on the day preceding the annual śrāddha, i.e., on Saturday, the 9th January 1042 A.C. he seems to have made a sankalpa about the grant. On the next day he performed the first annual or Samvatsara-śrāddha. The grant was thus made by Karna on Saturday in connection with the samvatsara-śrāddha, which fell on the second tithi of the dark half of Phālguna. The writer of the grant has, by mistake, coupled Saturday, when the grant was actually made, with the tithi of the first annual śrāddha which was really performed the next day. The foregoing discussion will show that Gāngēyadēva died on Phālguna va. di. 2 of the Kalachuri year 792, corresponding to the 22nd January 1041 A.C.

As for the geographical names mentioned in the present grant, Dr. Kielhorn at first identified the river Vēni in which Karna had bathed before making the grant with the Waingangā of Madhya Pradesh.⁴ Later on, however, he corrected himself and identified it with the confluence of the Gangā and the Yamunā with the subterranean Sarasvatī at Allahabad.⁵ The village Vēsāla, from which the donee hailed, is plainly Vaiśālī which figures prominently in Buddhist literature. Archæological excavation has identified it with Basarh in the Muzaffarpur District, Bihar.⁶ Prayāga, where the śrāddha was performed, is of course Allahabad. As for Srusī, it is probably identical with Sursi (long. 820 52', East and lat.250 12', North) in the Mirzapur District, 9 miles north of Chunār.⁷ It is stated that the village was situated in the sub-division of Kāśī, modern Banaras, and it is noteworthy that Sursi is just outside the southern boundary of
________________________

¹Ibid., Vol. XII, p. 206, n. 3. He has not cited any authority for his statement that Sunday is regarded as an inauspicious day for the performance of a śrāddha.

³These are the ūnābdika, which according to some is performed one day before, and the sapindīkarana and the ābdika (also called samvatsara-vimōksha), which are performed on the anniversary day. Some authorities identify the sapindīkarana and ābdika śrāddhas. See Hemādri’s Chaturvargachintāmani, Parisēshakhanda, pp. 294 ff; Nirnayasindhu (Nirnayasāgar ed.), p. 427.
⁴ Ep. Ind., Vol. II, p.299.
⁵ The Kamauli plates of Jayachchandra also mention Vēnī in this sense, ibid. Vol. IV, P. 122.
⁶ A. R. A. S. I., for 1903-4, pp. 81 f.
⁷ The identification was first suggested in my article in the Nagpur University Journal, No.1, pp. 51 ff.