North Indian Inscriptions

PART B

ought to be decisive if one were to trust the sketch of Cunningham. That this sketch does not deserve suspicion is proved by the publication of the photograph. So today possibly Foucher also would consent to the identification of the relief proposed by Hultzsch with the kinnara-episode, the last tale in a series of stories narrated to the former Purohita of king Brahmadatta of Benares by his pupil and present Purohita Takkāriya in Takkariyajataka (481) ^[1].

   The tale is quite clear in its course, although the text is badly preserved and the Gāthās therefore give great difficulties in details. A hunter catches a kinnara-couple in the Himavat and brings it to the king in Benares to whom such beings are quite unknown. When he hears from the hunter that kinnaras are clever in dancing and singing, he commands them to show their art. In fear of making an error and saying something false the pair remains silent. Enraged the king orders (G.7):

  â€œThey are not gods, and also not Gandharvas. They are animals brought ^[2] to me for the sake of profit. This one may be roasted for supper, the other one, however, may be roasted for breakfast ^[3]”.

Now the kinnari regards it timely to speak. She says (G. 8):

   “A hundred thousand of bad speeches do not weigh as much as one piece of good speech. Fearing calamity from bad speech, the kinnaras are silent, not out of stupidity^[4]”.

The king, pleased with the kinnari, answer (G. 9):

   “The one who spoke to me, should be set free and be taken to the Himavat-range. But the other one is to be delivered to the kitchen and roasted in the early morning for breakfast”.

   Now the kinnara also feels urged to open his mouth (GG. 10-12):

   “The cattle depend on the god of rain, these beings on the cattle. On you, oh great king, I depend; on me, my wife depends^[5]. One of us when released, could only go into the mountains, after having known that the other one is dead^[6]”.

   “Censure in fact cannot be easily avoided^[7]. The men with whom one has to manage, are different, oh king. The thing for what the one receives praise, for that the other meets with a censurer.”
________________________

^[1]IA. XXI, p. 226; JRAS. (1912), p. 407.
^[2]Instead of migā ime atthavasābhatā ime, which is also metrically incorrect, migā ime atthavasābhatā me is to be read. In the grammatical commentary later on the two last words have been explained in conformity with the contents of the story, but the me is attested by mama: atthavasābhatā ime ti atthaṁ pachchāsiṁsantena luddenānitattā atthavasena mama ābhatā.
^[3]In the fourth pāda the Siṁhalese mss. give ekañ cha puna pātarāse pachantu, the Burmese ekañ cha
naṁ puna pātarāse pachantu. The original reading was probably ekaṁ puna pātarāse pachantu.
^[4]Dubbhāsitaṁ saṁkamāno kileso tasmā tuṇhī kimpurisā na balyā. The third pāda cannot be right ; the explanation of the commentator, who seems to take kileso as verbum finitum, is without value. I should suppose─dubbhāsitā saṁkamānā kilesaṁ. It is to be noted that kilesa apparently has been used in the Buddhistic sense.
^[5]The edition reads according to the Burmese mss. nātho’ ham bhāriyāya cha, but Cs mama nāthā mama bhariyā mama nāthā, whereas Ck has only mama bhariyā. The commentary, according to the Simhalese mss. reads ─mamanāthā ti mama pana bhariyā mama nāthā aham assā patiṭṭho. Here, corresponding to the tvaṁ- nātho in the third pāda, .mama nāthā stands clearly instead of maṁnathā, and the pāda originally read maṁnāthā bhariyā mama or maṁnāthā mama bhariyā, where bhariyā is the representative of the original eastern form bhāliyā.
^[6]The two last pādas read in the text and the commentary without any variant dvinnam aññataraṁ natvā mutto gachchheyya pabbataṁ, which is not understandable to me. The commentary explains: amhākaṁ dvinnaṁ antore eko ekaṁ mataṁ ñatvā sayaṁ maraṇato mutto pachchhā Himavantaṁ gachchheyya | jivamānā pana mayaṁ aññamaññaṁ na jahāma | tasmā sa che si imaṁ Himavantaṁ pesetukāmo paṭhamaṁ maṁ māretvā pachchhā pesehiti, aññataraṁ is perhaps an attempt to rectify aññatamaṁ distorted from original aññaṁ mataṁ. I have translated accordingly, but I am by no means sure to have found the right meaning.
^[7] na ve nimdā suparivajjayā che, with the reading suparivajjayetha in the Burmese manuscripts. The che is ununderstandable, and passed over in the
commentary.