The Indian Analyst
 

North Indian Inscriptions

 

 

Contents

Index

Introduction

Contents

Contents

Preface

Additions and Corrections

Introduction

Images

Texts and Translations 

Part - A

Part - B

Other South-Indian Inscriptions 

Volume 1

Volume 2

Volume 3

Vol. 4 - 8

Volume 9

Volume 10

Volume 11

Volume 12

Volume 13

Volume 14

Volume 15

Volume 16

Volume 17

Volume 18

Volume 19

Volume 20

Volume 22
Part 1

Volume 22
Part 2

Volume 23

Volume 24

Volume 26

Volume 27

Tiruvarur

Darasuram

Konerirajapuram

Tanjavur

Annual Reports 1935-1944

Annual Reports 1945- 1947

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 2, Part 2

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 7, Part 3

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 1

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 2

Epigraphica Indica

Epigraphia Indica Volume 3

Epigraphia
Indica Volume 4

Epigraphia Indica Volume 6

Epigraphia Indica Volume 7

Epigraphia Indica Volume 8

Epigraphia Indica Volume 27

Epigraphia Indica Volume 29

Epigraphia Indica Volume 30

Epigraphia Indica Volume 31

Epigraphia Indica Volume 32

Paramaras Volume 7, Part 2

Śilāhāras Volume 6, Part 2

Vākāṭakas Volume 5

Early Gupta Inscriptions

Archaeological Links

Archaeological-Survey of India

Pudukkottai

TEXTS AND TRANSLATIONS

PART B

INSCRIPTIONS DESCRIBING THE SCULPTURAL REPRESENTATIONS

(a) THE SCULPTURAL REPRESENTATIONS AND THE TEXTUAL TRADITION.

  The question, whether the artists of Bhārhut worked according to the Pāli Jātaka collection or not, has been answered in the affirmative by Bühler[1] and in the negative by Minayeff[2] and von Oldenburg.[3] Foucher[4] is of the opinion that although a literary source akin to the Pāli collection was followed, this could not have been the Pāli collection itself. His argument─which I am going to treat in detail─rests on three grounds: firstly, the Jātakas in the labels and in the Pāli-texts have different titles; secondly, the lables are written in a dialect differing from the Pāli; thirdly, several of the stories represented cannot be found in the Pali collection.

   1. I cannot give any value to the first of the above-mentioned reasons.[5] The titles in the Jātaka collection are late, which may be concluded from the fact that they sometimes are based on a misunderstanding of the text. E.g. J. 341 bears the title Kaṇḍarijātaka. The name Kaṇḍari, however, is based, as mentioned in our treatment of No. B 60, on the false separation of the words in Gāthā 21 of J. 536, and in reality is the same as in the label of the Bhārhut relief viz. Kaṇḍariki. The titles of the Jātakas often differ in the manuscripts of the Atthavaṇṇanā too. In Burmese, the Mūgapakkhaj. (538) is called Temiyaj., and the Mahāummaggaj. (546) appears as Mahosadhaj. For Guṇaj. (157) at least some Burmese manuscripts give Sīhaj., as well as Rājovādaj. for Mahākapij. (407) and Chandakumāraj. for Khaṇḍahālaj. (542). In some Siṁhalese manuscripts Romakaj. (277) is styled Pārāpataj. Also the commentator of the Jātaka himself, when alluding to the Jātakas, often uses title, different from those standing in the text. Finally the occurrence of smaller differences in the titles may be considered as shortenings or extensions of them. E.g. the commentator mentions the Sammodamānaj. (33) as Vaṭṭakaj. in Vol. V, 414, 27, the Vānarindaj. (57) as Kumbhīlaj. in Vol. II, 206, 14, the Telapattaj. (96) as Takkasilaj. in Vol. I, 469, 30 f., the Guṇaj. (157) as Sigālaj. in Vol. II, 314, 21, the Ādittaj. (424) as Sovīraj.[6] in Vol. IV, 360, 24; 401, 12, the Kosambīj. (428) as Saṁghabhedaj. in Vol. III, 211, 10 f., the Chakkavākaj. (434) as Kākaj. in Vol. I, 241, 28 f., Vol. II, 318, 23 f., the Samuggaj. (436) as Karaṇḍakaj. in Vol. V, 455, 2, the Chatudvāraj. (439) as Mahāmittavindakaj. in Vol. I, 363, 7 f., Vol. III, 206, 14 f., the Mahākapij. (516) as Vevaṭiyakapij.[7] in Vol. III, 178, 7 f., the Vidhurapaṇḍitaj. (545) as Puṇṇakaj. in Vol. IV, 14, 24 f.; 182, 19.
____________________________

[1]On the Origin of the Indian Brāhma Alphabet, p. 16 f.
[2]Recherches sur le Bouddhisme, p. 152.
[3]JAOS. XVIII, p. 185 f.
[4]Mém. conc. I’ Asie Orient., Vol. III, p. 9.
[5]In the same way already Rhys Davids, Buddh. Birth Stories, p. LXI has expressed his opinion.
[6]Suchirajātaka (Ck[5]), Vidūrajātaka (B[d]) in Vol. IV, 360, 24, Sivirajātaka (B[d]) in Vol. IV, 401, 12 are distortions by the writers, cf. Andersen, J., Vol. VII, p. XIV.
[7]In the Siṁhalese manuscripts.

Home Page