North Indian Inscriptions

PART A

   Dhanabhutisa. In the latter case, we should, of course, have to assume that it was due to mere chance that he had a mother of the same gotra as the Dhanabhūti of Bhārhut, their identify being precluded by the script of their records. There is absolutely no reason why bhutisa should be restored as Dhanabhutisa, names ending in bhuti being very frequent in this time.

   The term ratnagṛiha seems to denote a Stūpa. The term P. parisā, Sk. Parishad is used also in the Pāli Canon and in the scriptures of the Sarvāstivādins with reference to the division of the Buddhist Order into bhikkhus, bhikkhunis, upāsakas and upasikas.

A 2 (688); PLATE XXIII

  FRAGMENTARY inscription on a pillar of a gateway, now at Batanmāra. Edited by Cunningham, StBh. (1879), p. 128, No. 2 and Pl. LIII ; Barua-Sinha, BI. (1926), p. 3, No. 2.

TEXT:

1 Sagana raja .. .. ..
2 Agaraju .. .. ..
3 toraṇaṁ^[1] .. .. ..

TRANSLATION:

  During the reign of the Sugas (Śuṅgas)^[2] ……..Āgaraju (Aṅgāradyat?)^[2] …………the gateway……………

   The text of the inscription was probably the same as that of No. A 1. Another fragmentary toraṇa-inscription is No. A 129.

A 3 (869)^[3]; PLATE XXIII

   RAIL inscription. Edited by Cunningham, PASB. 1874, p. 116; Cunningham StBh. (1879), p. 142, No. 54 and Pl. LVI ; Hultzsch, ɀDNG., Vol. XL (1886), p. 60; and IA., Vol. XXI (1829)¸ p. (1892), p. 225 ; Barua-Sinha, BI. (1926), p. 30, No. 103 ; Barua, Barh. I, p. 42.

TEXT:

Dhanabhutisa rājano putasa kamārasa^[4] Vādhapālasa [dānaṁ]

TRANSLATION:

   (Gift) of prince Vādhapāla (Vyādhapāla),^[5] the son of king Dhanabhūti. Dhanabhūti is already known as the donor of the ‘toraṇa’ mentioned in A 1. There he is not referred to as ‘king’ as he is in our inscription ; in A 1, however, his grandfather bears that title.
___________________________

^[1]From Cunningham’s eye-copy. The transcript on p. 128 has Saganam and Aga Rajna. The true readings are apparently Sugānaṁ raje and Āgaraju.
^[2]For the names see notes in A 1.
^[3]Lüders’ treatment of this inscription is missing.
^[4]kamārasa is obviously a scribe’s mistake for kumārasa.
^[5]This derivation is not quite certain, but more probable than that of Barua and Sinha who suggest Vṛiddhapāla. For vādha=vṛiddha they refer to ‘vādharāja’ in the Hathigumphā inscription (List No. 1345), but there vadharājan appears. The name Vādhapāla (=Vyādhapāla) has been classified above (I, 4, a, 5) as Śaivite.