North Indian Inscriptions

PART B

B 81 (902)^[1]; PLATE XXIII

EDITTED by Cunningham, StBh. (1879), p. 143, No. 19, and Pl. LVI; Hultzsch, ɀDMG. Vol. XL, p. 76, note 2; IA. Vol. XXI (1892), p. 239, No. 160; Barua-Sinha, BI. (1926), p. 78, No. 188; Ramaprasad Chanda, MASI. (1927), No. 30, p. 6; Lüders, Bhārh. (1941), p. 86 f.

TEXT:
1 (Ba)huhathika āsana
2 (bhaga)vato Mahādevasa^[2]

TRANSLATION:
The seat Bahuhathika (‘where there are many elephants’) of the holy Mahādeva.

   This fragmentary inscription, of which only an eye-copy by Cunningham is known, stood on a sculpture the whereabouts of which are not known. The restoration at the beginning of each line can be regarded as certain.

   Cunningham remarks that the relief depicted a throne (āsana) with a number of human hands (bahuhathika) on the front side. Bahuhathika, however, certainly does not refer to the meaning as bahuhathika of B 70 and B 71 where we found it as the name of the holy nyagrodha tree on mountain Naḍoda, and it is likely that the seat and the tree represent the same locality. Cunningham indeed does not say anything of a tree; but from his silence it cannot be concluded that a tree has not been present on the relief as stone seats usually are not depicted without a tree standing behind. Cunningham really did not intend to give a full description of the sculpture. He was only interested in the explanation of the word āsana and bahuhathika. Bhagavat Mahādeva to whom the stone seat is here ascribed can scarcely be someone else than the historical Buddha^[3] who according to B 62 was qualified by this epithet. Therefore, if the identification of Bahuhathika āsana with Bahuhathiko nigodha is right, the person of the Buddha must have played also a role in the legends located on mountain Naḍoda.

B 82 (903 a)^[4]; PLATES XXIII, XLVII

   FRAGMENTARY inscription. Cunningham, StBh. (1879), Pl. XXXV, 2; Barua-Sinha, BI. (1926), p. 99, No. 225; Barua, Barh. Vol. II (1934), p. 171 and Vol. III (1937), Pl. XCVI (147); Lüders, Bhārh. (1941), p. 40, f. n. l.

TEXT:
[ra]ma . .^[5]

   Barua-Sinha read the inscription as himan(i) and doubtfully restore it to himāni-chaṁkama “the snowy resort”. It is quite unintelligible how this restoration could be made. The
__________________________

^[1]Lüders’ treatment of this inscription is missing in the manuscript. Our explanation is based on his remarks l.c.
^[2]The readings given by Cunningham on p. 143 (Ba)huhathikasa and Maha Devasa are only erroneous.
^[3]Ramaprasad Chanda wants to explain Mahādeva as a tree-deity. Now the attribute bhagavat is indeed applied also to lower deities, e.g. to a Nāga in the Mathurā inscription No. 85 of my List; by the Buddhist, however, it seems to have been given only to the Buddha.
^[4]Lüders’ treatment of this inscription has been recovered. The text given below is based on his remarks l.c.
^[5]From the photograph in StBh.