North Indian Inscriptions

PART A

TRANSLATION :
The gift of ……ya^[1].

A 126 (887)^[2] ; PLATE XXVI

EDITED by Cunningham, StBh. (1879), p. 143, No. 4, and Pl. LVI; Barua-Sinha, BI. (1926), p. 35, No. 122.

TEXT:
Avāsikā .. .. ^[3]

TRANSLATION:
(Gift of ?) Avāsikā (?)^[4]…. A donor of the name Āvāsika from Ājanāva occurs in Lüders’ List No. 619^[5].

A 127 (903)^[2]; PLATE XXVI

EDITED by Cunningham, StBh. (1879), Pl. LVI, No. 20 (Pl. only); Barua-Sinha, BI. (1926), p. 38, No. 134, and p. 62, No. 166; Barua, Barh., Vol. II (1934), p. 41; Lüders,Bhārh. (1941), p. 40.

TEXT:

1 Ko . . dalākiye-
2 y[o] dana ṭanachakamapari-
3 [repo]^[6]

TRANSLATION:
The plastering of the ṭana-walk (is) the gift of Ko.. dalaki(?).

Barua-Sinha divide this inscription into two parts and explain it as koladalākiyāya dānaṁ “The gift of Koladalākhya (?)” and Vanacaṁkamo Pārireyo “The woodland resort Pārileya”. On the latter inscription they add the following remark: “The label seems to have been attached to a scene of the grassy woodland, where the Buddha spent a rainy season, being waited upon and guarded by the elephant Pārileyyaka or Pāreraka………… The story of this elephant is given in the Mahāvagga of the Vinaya-Piṭaka, the Kosambī-Jātaka of the Jātaka-Comy. (F. No. 428), and the Kosambakavatthu of the Dhammapada-Comy.”.

Lüders, whose treatment of the inscription has not come to our hands, remarks, while dealing with the chaṅkamas (l.c.), that probably a third chaṅkama ws depicted in Bharhut.
____________________

^[1]Barua-Sinha propose to combine our fragment with the inscription No. A 35 where the usual dānam is missing. This is quite conjectural.
^[2]Lüders’ treatment of this inscription is missing.
^[3]From the eye-copy of Cunningham. The right part of the inscription is broken off.
^[4]Perhaps the name means: ‘one who has a residence’. Accordingly it has been classified under II, 3, b (names derived from wealth, fame, and birth).
^[5]Barua-Sinha suggest to complete the inscription as Āvāsikā( ya bhikhuniyā dānaṁ) “The gift of a nun of the local monastic abode.” Their reference to āvāsika-bhikkhu ‘resident monk’ which is opposed to āgantuka-bhikkhu ‘visiting monk’ in this connection does not give sufficient support to the restoration proposed by them.
^[6]From Cunningham’s eye-copy.